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....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

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

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label Constitutionalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitutionalist. Show all posts

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Happy Birthday, President Reagan

Today marks the birthday of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th president of the United States of America.

Joshua Pundit:

Reagan became president when the United States was in a period of great stress, just after the tenure of Jimmy Carter. Inflation and interest rates were in double digits and unemployment was close to 7%, taxes were at an all time high, America's foreign policy and international prestige were reeling from the Iranian hostage crisis, severe cutbacks in defense and successful Soviet penetration all over the world.

Worse than that, Americans seemed to have lost confidence in themselves and in the country's greatness.

Reagan squared his shoulders, rolled up his sleeves and got to work. He cut government, cut taxes, and oversaw the creation of 16 million new jobs and economic growth at 3.5 % per year. He rebuilt America's military. He was unafraid to call the Soviet Union an evil empire, or to challenge them directly so that their evil empire crumpled into the dust of history.

He left America safer, stronger and wealthier than it was when he came, which is the most you can ask of a president. In simple terms, he was a singularly decent man who honored both himself and the nation he served.

He gave us confidence in ourselves again, reminded us of who we are and that we are a country singularly blessed by G-d's providence. He inspired us as a nation. And he did it with grace, charm, wit and style, and with a sunny optimism that reached out to the best in us.

If ever a president deserved a national holiday to honor him, President Reagan does.

He was by no means perfect, as he would doubtless be the first to say. But in Ronald Reagan, we have an example of what real leadership is, an example especially needed today.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President...We Miss You!!!

** And let us remember this conservative yet practical leader in the upcoming elections of 2014 and 2016.  Reagan's old and proven formula was to unite behind the most conservative and principled candidate(s) available, and to make sure he or she knew that 2-years, let alone 10-months, isn't that far away. It won't be perfect, but it will even put RINO’s who survive on notice that times have changed!!

Reagan at His Best…

Friday, December 27, 2013

"America's Mama Grizz!" - Wild Bill [video]

Video:  "America's Mama Grizz!" -  Wild Bill

Listen up… Palin is one classy yet tough American woman who defeated the left wing media smear machine and gives hope for good men and women everywhere to run for office.

“By the Way… If you want to save this country, don’t even consider Chris Christie or Paul Ryan as a presidential candidate, Republicans; it’s time to get real America, it’s time to focus and create the opportunity for Truth to be heard. How? By speaking it and not shrinking back from the PC liars!”  …PBN  (And Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are just variations of what we have had for the past 5-years who were involved in all the scandals and screw-ups in Obamaland!)

“It is also time to stop listening to the propaganda that has been fed us, over and over again, by the Progressives on both sides, by the RINOs and Establishment Republicans and by the ruling elite which includes the mainstream media whose job it is to inform the public and report the truth of what is going on without bias… not to work hand-in-hand with one side or the other and spout their opinions instead of facts without noting that they are editorializing!”

Sarah Palin is a contender and she could win in 2016 if we, the American people, wake-up, stand-up and really want to turn things around!!  We all need to educate ourselves and share the truth about Palin, the Tea Party and other patriots under attack including Ted Cruz, Mile Lee, Rand Paul, and anyone else who stands up to the entrenched beltway politicians, as well as educate everyone about the Progressive media! We need a million more Sarah Palins to stand-up, to step-up and to stand with her!!

 Sarah Palin: The Undefeated

Sunday, March 17, 2013

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 3

Sarah and the Big Gulp - CPAC-Back

Sarah Palin Rocks the CPAC House… Holding-Up Her Big Gulp as She Ends Her Speech…

Video: CPAC 2013 - U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

Video: CPAC 2013 - President Obama's Prayer Breakfast Club (feat. Dr. Ben Carson and Eric Metaxas)

If you haven’t seen it… See Dr. Benjamin Carson's Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with

Video: CPAC 2013 - Mia Love, Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah

Video:  CPAC 2013- Brent Bozell, Founder and President Media Research Center

Video: CPAC 2013 - Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis

Video: CPAC 2013 - Phyllis Schlafy, Founder, Eagle Forum (Emcee: Steven Crowder)

Video: CPAC 2013 – Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)

CPAC Star: We are not here to re-brand a party… We are here to rebuild a country!

Palin rouses the faithful at CPAC

Video: CPAC 2013- Ann Coulter

Video: Senator Ted Cruz Gives Keynote Speech at CPAC 2013

Jeb Bush Beats the Drum for Inclusion and Acceptance at CPAC

rand_paul_s640x347

Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll

No surprise here, as Paul's supporters worked hard to get out the vote for their man.

Robert Costa:

Rand Paul won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, a victory that cements his status as a tea-party favorite.

Paul, who spoke at CPAC earlier this week, drew the support of many college-age activists and libertarians. Throughout the conference's hallways, the support for Paul was strong, and his backers handed out "Stand with Rand" posters.

Conservative leaders say Paul's victory is a sign of his popularity within Republican ranks. "I'm glad someone who says bold things is rising," says Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute. "At a time when many conservatives are reflecting on the future, his views are connecting."

Boyden Gray, a former counselor to President George H. W. Bush, agrees. He says Paul may not be cheered in every corner of the party, but he's a formidable figure. "Even within the GOP, people are beginning to question big institutions, from big government to big banks, and Rand Paul is speaking to them," he says.

Senator Paul, a Kentucky Republican and ophthalmologist, follows in the footsteps of his father, Ron Paul, who won the CPAC straw poll in 2010 and 2011.

Paul's supporters were not the only activists pushing a candidate at the Gaylord National Hotel in suburban Maryland. Supporters of Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, and supporters of New Jersey governor Chris Christie also had informal get-out-the-vote operations.

But Paul's group was, by far, the most vocal, and its efforts paid off. According to a CPAC official, Paul was expected to win, and he drew heavy, consistent support.

Other Republicans on the ballot included Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, Governor Bobby Jindal, and Governor Scott Walker. Rubio, for his part, came in a close second. Paul won 25 percent, and Rubio won 23 percent.

Tea Party favorite, rising Republican star, libertarian heartthrob - but a successful candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016?

It won't be his fiscal conservatism, or his ability to articulate conservative principles. But it may be his foreign policy positions that would make Rand Paul a bridge too far for a majority of Republicans. Is the party ready to accept isolationism as a foundational principle in foreign affairs? This remains to be seen.

Rand Paul is not as stridently anti-interventionist as his father and that has to count for something. But you can bet the major line of attack of Paul's primary opponents will be questions about his commitment to Republican foreign policy principles.

Rand Paul won the CPAC straw poll and was closely followed by Marco Rubio… and many feel that if Ted Cruz had spoken earlier in the event that he would have come in higher in the poll… but again, Sarah Palin rocked the house!!

Related:

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 2

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 1

Rand Paul takes a stand for the Facebook generation and tears apart Big Government spending

CPAC Star: We are not here to re-brand a party… We are here to rebuild a country!

American superstar: ‘STUPID people’ running country

Saturday, March 16, 2013

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 2

Video: CPAC 2013 - U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Video: Sen. Rick Santorum Speech at CPAC 2013

Here is video of Sen. Rick Santorum speaking at CPAC 2013 earlier today. Santorum spoke with emotion, explaining that his nephew had just passed away.

Video: CPAC 2013 - Former Governor Mitt Romney (Intro by Gov. Nikki Haley)

Video: Donald Trump CPAC 2013 Speech US Is Run By " Very Stupid People " Trump

Read more at Ask Marion: American superstar: ‘STUPID people’ running country

Video:  CPAC 2013 - Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA)

Video:  Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR): U.S. Fighting Against “Radical Islamic Jihad”

Read more at Jihad Watch…

Video: NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Rocks CPAC: ‘You Keep Your Advice, We’ll Keep Our Guns’

Read more at The Blaze…

Schedule for (Final) Day 3 – Saturday 03.16.13:

Associated Press – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Conservative Super Star Sarah Palin: Brought the Red Meat to CPAC 2012 and They Loved It… Loved Her!

9:05 a.m.: Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa)
9:45 a.m.: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.)
10 a.m.: Dr. Ben Carson
10 a.m.: Technology panel
Noon: Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska
3:45 p.m.: Reince Preibus, chairman of the Republican National Committee
3:55 p.m.: David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association
5:10 p.m.: Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas)

Dr. Benjamin Carson Reveals Why He Spoke Out Against Obamas Policies at National Prayer Breakfast

Associated Press

Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital

Related:

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 1

Rand Paul takes a stand for the Facebook generation and tears apart Big Government spending

CSPAN will be covering the CPAC Event

Friday, May 4, 2012

Occupy and Tea Party - Does the Media Tell You The Truth?

By: AJ

Take a look at what goes on at a Tea Party gathering. Lydia Ortega, Brian Sussman, Mimi Steel and Neil Mammen were speakers at California’s Silicon Valley Tea Party.

Silicon Valley Tea Party – 15 April 2012 – Lydia Ortega (A Professor at San Jose State University!)

Silicon Valley Tea Party – 15 April 2012 – Brian Sussman

Silicon Valley Tea Party – 15 April 2012 – Mimi Steel

Video that Mimi Steel referenced in her speech: SFBAY CAPR-Mark Levin-CA War On Suburbia-4-9-12

Silicon Valley Tea Party – 15 April 2012 – Neil Mammen

Take a look at what goes on at an Occupy gathering in California’s Oakland May Day Mayhem.

MAY DAY MAYHEM IN OAKLAND: Occupy continues on their Destructive Path

Who do you stand with? Do you stand with those who want to preserve and restore our free markets, property rights and Liberty? Or do you stand with the vile and violent Occupiers who want to destroy America (or, as Obama calls it, “transform America”)?

Obama, his administration and specific Congressional Representatives have voiced their support for Occupy, so we know who they stand with. Will you be voting against them in the 2012 election?

Let’s get right down to it… it’s time to believe what you see with your own eyes, not what the propaganda media feeds you. Does the media tell you the truth? No.

Ask your family, friends and neighbors to watch these videos so they can see the dramatic difference between Occupy and the Tea Party. Then ask them if they knew the difference before they saw these videos.

It’s time for everyone to decide who they stand with – and then stand! And vote accordingly!

-----------------------------

OWS Arrests (Over 6000) -vs- Tea Party Arrests (0):

But Where is the Liberal Media on this?

Most Controversial Reality Show Ever:  Tea Party vs.Occupy (ExposetheMedia.com)

Related articles

The OWS Violent Protests are a Direct Result of President Obama and His Minions!

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

A Tale of Two Republican Parties

There are two Republican parties. One is fairly liberal, it is hostile to the left but it also believes in stealing their thunder by adopting moderate versions of their policies.

This Republican Party is strongly pro-business, but it believes that to succeed in a global economy the government must provide subsidies to businesses and individuals. It believes that immigration reform is needed, though its chosen candidates know to avoid using the word amnesty. It believes that national health care is inevitable and that the only way to avoid a government solution is through the individual mandate.

It is loosely conservative, but disinterested in social issues. It thinks that the left has gone too far in upending traditional values, but has no interested in combating it and finds those who do embarrassing . It adapts to changing mores with an uneasy smile and tries to pretend that it was with it all along. It has no strong religious feelings and it believes that all religions, including Islam, are basically the same.

It is strong on national defense spending, but mainly to maintain stability and national influence, not because it believes that we face any real threats. It believes that America has a responsibility to the rest of the world and that we are obligated to give back through the United Nations and other international organizations allowing us to spread our values of free enterprise and democracy to everyone.

It is a big believer in the American Dream of economic opportunity, but is unable to think of any other national virtues beyond that. It maintains a strongly Federalist legacy and while it agrees that the Federal government has overreached itself in interfering with the business of states, it has no real interest in rolling back its powers, only in making certain that they are used “wisely”.

The only area where it actively rolls back the left’s program is its deregulation of businesses, but even this is limited to spheres that are objectionable to specific industries which lobby for deregulation. Small businesses can expect much less help, unless they band together and forcefully make something into an issue.

It has no passion for anything beyond deregulating a few specific industries. It supports the right to bear arms, not because it passionately believes in it, but because the political costs of not doing so are too high. It opposes abortion for the same reason, though its opposition is mainly a formality. It believes that gay marriage is inevitable, but isn’t willing to pick a fight with its base over it.

Its leaders and members consider themselves rationalists and believe in Global Warming because “the science says so.” They sneer at those Republicans who deny what they think is the obvious. While they are skeptical of government solutions to Global Warming, they are prepared to accept an approach that does not cause too much harm to business and is routed through private companies.

It views what the Republican Party has become as an embarrassment and while it doles out red meat to the base when it has to, it despises them and constantly dreams of ways of getting rid of them. In its fondest daydreams, a graduated amnesty program for Mexican immigrants by a Republican president turns them all into legal citizens and Republican voters, allowing them to tell their guns n bibles base to kiss off.

It does not believe that Obama is bad, only inexperienced and misguided, but basically well-meaning and its lack of support for him is not due to a firm belief that his agenda is destructive, but to political calculations and the need to appease their base.

This Party is not particularly worried about the future of the United States except as a place to do business. And even then it will easily move operations offshore to Dubai or Singapore. Overall it is optimistic that things will go on as they have, with a gradual process of reform advanced by the left and moderated by the right in the political process resulting in a workable center.

Then there’s the other Republican Party. This party is deeply worried about the future of the country, and not just as a place to do business. It is socially conservative, strong on national defense because it believes that we do face real threats and enemies, it is opposed to amnesty and very skeptical of Federal power.

This party is more new than it is old, it’s a party that evolved in response to the transformation of the Democratic Party at the hands of the left. It is the base from which the Republican Party draws much of its support, particularly away from the Northeast, and it is struggling to force the party to match its deeds to its words.

It does not believe that most of the national debates are a tempest in a teacup that can be settled amicably behind closed doors. It is uninterested in bipartisan great compromisers, it seeks fighters who will stand up for its agenda. It is not interested in the progressive voyage to the national future that has been taken up by both parties, what it would like is independence from their reign of policy terror. It would like to roll back the progressive policymaking of both parties.

It is concerned for its ability to earn a living, for the values of its children and the basic freedoms that it can see being lost every day. It remembers a time when people had more freedom and less rules hanging over their heads. The tide of paperwork, the omnipresent regulatory state infuriate it and lead it to vote for people who claim to want Washington off their backs. But next year there are even more regulations and paperwork to deal with.

It is deeply worried about the Bill of Rights, its right to bear arms, its right to speak freely and to practice its beliefs without interference from the government. It is worried about them because it has already witnessed the dramatic erosion of its freedoms and it expects the process to continue.

It is unenthusiastic about deploying troops to maintain global hegemony or aid other nations, it is however vigorous about defending the country from enemy attack. Its members often have a tradition of military service and a skeptical view of how the politicians have used and abused the military for their own purposes.

Its skepticism of authority transcends government and extends to elites in science, academia and the entertainment industry. It recognizes the major gap between its values and theirs, and accordingly distrusts them. It is much less subject to being cowed by absolute truths presented by the elites and often seeks out alternative opinions.

What it wants most is independence from outside regulations that impinge on its way of life. It has little interest in positive rights and a defense of its rights by the government, what it would like is the ability to defend its own rights, to maintain a separation from the elites and its own property and family.

These two Republican parties have been on a collision course for some time now. The collision repeats itself in every election as it has throughout the 20th century. The Republican establishment has never really come to terms with its new core constituencies, the people resistant to the New Deal who were then joined by the people resistant to every other liberal big government innovation that came down the pike.

Between an establishment committed to moderate progressivism and a base that is unwilling to accept less freedoms and more regulation for their own good, is a massive divide. It is a cultural, economic, social and regional divide that needs to be talked about.

Too many establishment candidates have cakewalked into office by paying lip service to the concerns of the base without believing a word of it. Each time the process repeats itself, the collision becomes more explosive until something has to give.

Either the Republican establishment needs to step up to the plate and honestly repudiate its base or it needs to step aside and decide which it cares about more, deregulation or its version of the progressive agenda, because it cannot continue as a contradiction in terms without a meltdown. The current ugliness is a manifestation of that yawning gap between the two parties that cannot be bridged without an honest dialogue about the different values of those at the top and those at the bottom.

Daniel Greenfield by Daniel Greenfield on February 6th, 2012  -  This is article 39 of 42 in the topic Republican Party

Related:

Is It Time for Conservatives, Moderates, Independents and the GOP to Come Together?  Especially After Super Tuesday?

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Biden and Dems Call Concerned Patriots and Constitutionalists Terrorists

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit. Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting. “We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in...  continued Here

Video: Sarah Palin "To Be Called A Terrorist From The Vice President Is Quite Appalling! Quite Vile"

Interesting that the Tea Party is being blasted for the “grand compromise”.  The 3-major tea party type GOP candidates or possible candidates:  Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have all come out against it.

The tea party is made up of average Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility and following the Constitution… how radical is that?!? Their crime… they have changed the conversation in Washington and have complicated the Progressive’s plan of fundamentally transforming America…

Video:  Michele Bachmann – We Need Tough Love

Ron Paul Blasts Debt Deal

August 1, 2011

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia - Today, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement outlining his opposition to the debt ceiling deal struck between the White House and Congress. See statement below.

"While it is good to see serious debate about our debt crisis, I cannot support the reported deal on raising the nation's debt ceiling.  I have never voted to raise the debt ceiling, and I never will.
"This deal will reportedly cut spending by only slightly over $900 billion over 10 years.  But we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit after this year alone, meaning those meager cuts will do nothing to solve our unsustainable spending problem.

"In fact, this bill will never balance the budget.  Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit.  This also assumes the cuts are real cuts and not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of spending less than originally projected so you can claim the difference as a ‘cut.'

"The plan also calls for the formation of a deficit commission, which will accomplish nothing outside of providing Congress and the White House with another way to abdicate responsibility.

"In my many years of public service, there have been commissions on everything from Social Security to energy policy, yet not one solution has been produced out of these commissions.

"By denying members the ability to offer amendments and only allowing an up-or-down vote that will take place in the hectic time between Thanksgiving and Christmas, this Commission essentially disenfranchises the vast majority of members from meaningfully participating in the debate over reducing spending and balancing the budget.

"Furthermore, despite the claims of the bill's proponents, there is nothing to stop the commission from recommending tax increases.
"One of the reasons why I humbly suggest that I am the most qualified Presidential candidate is my experience to see and understand the long track record of failure, disappointments, and bad recommendations made by such commissions.

"Times like these require statesmanship and steady leadership, which I and the grassroots activists who have joined my campaign believe I am uniquely qualified to provide.

"What should bother Americans most is that under cover of this debt ceiling circus, we learned from a recent GAO one-time, limited audit that the Federal Reserve secretly pumped $16 trillion into American and foreign banks over three years.  All of the Fed's fat cat cronies were taken care of at the expense of the American public.

"To put that into perspective, our entire national debt is $14.5 trillion, and our annual deficit will be about $1.6 trillion, meaning the Federal Reserve created and appropriated more than our entire national debt to banks around the world in a few short years.  We have been fighting in Congress these past few weeks over raising our debt ceiling by $2 trillion, an amount the Fed secretly gave away to just one big bank.

"For decades, politicians have promised future restraint in exchange for hikes in the debt limit.  We are always told that we must act immediately to avoid a crisis.  But time and time again, politicians reveal themselves to be untrustworthy, and we soon find ourselves in a crisis being led by the same folks who wish only to maintain the status quo.

"I believe in the great American traditions of free markets, sound money, and personal Liberty.  But we are moving far away from what made us the greatest nation in human history. We must cut spending and balance our budget now, before it is too late.

"Let me be clear.  The cuts we must make will not be easy, and there will be difficult times in the short run.  But I have the greatest confidence that if we come together as a People, work hard, and do the right things, our country will be back on track in no time and on its way to unprecedented prosperity.  But, if we continue to print money and pyramid debt, we will destroy ourselves and lose the promise of America forever.

"These difficult times require a President willing to stand against runaway spending.  If elected, I will veto any spending bill that contributes to an unbalanced budget, and I will balance the budget in the first year of my term.  I will not allow the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of our money by shoveling dollars into the pockets of its banker friends.

"I remain committed to working on behalf of the American people to drastically reduce spending and implement fundamental changes that will reform government and restore our nation's prosperity."

This is your LAST CHANCE to let your voice be heard before
your Senators vote on the final debt deal.

ACTION #1 -- FAX CONGRESS TODAY!

Reports all last week indicated that the phones were
jammed. Grassfire Nation's FaxFire system may be the
best way to get a message through to your members of
Congress.

GO HERE NOW TO LET YOUR SENATORS AND REP -- AND OTHER
KEY HOUSE MEMBERS -- KNOW WHERE YOU STAND ON THE DEBT
CEILING DEAL THROUGH THEIR SYSTEM:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=45793&CID=160&RID=30483541

ACTION #2 -- CALL CONGRESS NOW

As noted above, it is quite possible that the Capitol Hill
phone lines will be jammed. But please try to call and let
your Senators (and Reps) know what you think about this latest
deal.

Rep. Miller 202-225-4136 
Sen. Nelson 202-224-5274
Sen. Rubio 202-224-3041

Let them know how you feel about this deal, about the House vote yesterday and tell you Senators to vote NO!

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Judging Sotomayor - Specials - FOXNews.com - Video - Updated





Related Resources:
Issues of Concern:
  • Sotomayor's Racially Biased Comments in Speeches
  • Sotomayor's Penchant for Judicial Activism
  • Sotomayor's Rulings over-turned by the Supreme Court
  • Sotomayor's Comment About Making Policy from the Bench
  • Sotomayor's Racially Biased Activities
  • Sotomayor's Leanings Toward "Empathy" Rather Than Upholding and Interpreting the Law
  • Sotomayor's Anti-2nd Amendment Leanings

Call Your Senator at...

United States Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121

or directly...

Senators List from your State

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Sunday, May 31, 2009

TOP TEN REASONS SOTOMAYOR SHOULDN’T AND WON'T BE CONFIRMED

TOP TEN REASONS SOTOMAYOR WON'T BE CONFIRMED (& how to stop her)

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:

10) SOTOMAYOR: ADMITS MAKING ACTIVIST POLICY FROM THE BENCH
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.

9) SOTOMAYOR: PRO-ABORTION-SUPPORTS ROE V. WADE
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.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI- 2nd AMENDMENT
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.

7) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT PRO-MUSLIM?
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.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

6) SOTOMAYOR:  SAVIOR OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
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.

5) SOTOMAYOR: OVERRULED 33 OF 44 VOTES BY SUPREME COURT
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."

4) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORITISM BY RACE OR GENDER, NOT LAW
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.

3) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER AMERICAN LAW
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. 
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

2) SOTOMAYOR:  EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY
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."

1) SOTOMAYOR: BASEBALL BIAS FOR NEW YORK YANKEES!
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!

WHY DID SEVEN REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HER?
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!

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

ALL TRUE CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE AGAINST HER
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: 

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Why Sotomayor Worries Judicial Conservatives

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
By Brit Hume

FNC

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:

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.

Source: THE NEW REPUBLIC 2009
Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

RELATED CONTENT:

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
  •