Rotating Header Image


Wasn’t the purpose of the Civil Rights Act to do away with — by process of elimination — racial discrimination, later adding gender (among other) discrimination? Wasn’t the sales pitch by the Barack Obama Democrats during his campaign that he would set some benchmark as to racialism? Wasn’t this all — our modernism as a nation — supposed to be about evaluating people by their character and not the color of their skin?

Martin Luther King’s vision has failed to permeate the generations after that sermon on the mall in D.C. — that one where he said he’d been to the mountaintop and he had a dream. Throw in gender discrimination to his list of what he saw us doing without and that’ll conclusively make King’s glorious visions out to have perished along with him.

Because today we have this nomination to the Supreme Court being heard in our nation’s Senate, this nomination of the well-hyped “Latina woman” (an oxymoron but I didn’t author the phrase) by a Black male in the Presidency whose criteria for nominating her isn’t the law, our U.S. Constitution, but the color of his emotions: “empathy” is his standard, how a judge feels, how they are emotionally affected by persons and issues before them, how they formulate more emotions, emotionally, based upon what they feel.

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t have anything in it about that. There’s no requirement in the Constitution about feelings as to qualifying for the Supreme Court, not specifically as to being the criteria (and in this case, the specific, sole criteria) for a confirmation to occupy the bench and “interpret the Constitution.” Obama and the Senate Democrats are expecting the nation to follow the “feelings” model and to confirm Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court because of her emotions and our emotions and this unspecifiable, nonspecific thing Obama refers to as “empathy” that doesn’t exist in any context that today — prior to any confirmation — can even be identified.

In other words, what Obama defines as his criteria, and preference, for the Supreme Court as to who he nominates and wants confirmed, are judicial activists. They feel their way to decisions, arrived at by feelings over reason: not what is in the Constitution but what they feel should be in it.

No, we’re being told we must feel that Sotomayor will feel appropriately in her feelings about the Constitution and will emit rulings based upon how she feels about her ideas of what the Constitution should have said but perhaps didn’t so she feels it should have said something else and that’s how she feels about it, so, that’s her decision, that she feels it should have said or could have said something else and therefore she feels she will rule in some tangential relationship to the Constitution based upon what it should have said, or so she felt.

We all know with a certainty what Barack Obama actually means when he describes his criteria for the Supreme Court, as to why he nominated Sonia Sotomayor (and likely others of this same Obama criteria): what he MEANS is that he wants “people of color” on the Supreme Court who are Leftwing (this describes the politics of racialism). Except that Obama defines Leftwing — as do the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee if not all the Leftwing media, Democrats nearly all of them — he and they define “Leftwing” as “moderate.”

In the perceptions of the Left, all their excess is “moderate” and any variation from this excess is somehow off in space, on Mars, not of this Earth, “the other” that they loathe and fear and make sure the public does, too, based upon shaky stories and a lot of confused feelings.

Their gender, ethnicity and race can be easily associated with both (Sonia Sotomayor and Barack Obama) because they are the first to promote themselves by way of those characteristics. I doubt many would refer to any of such without the “owners'” use of such to define and promote themselves, which defines a racist, an ethnic-supremacist and a sexist in one or some combination of all of that. Their politics, their personalities, their histories and their use of the good graces of others, all imposed upon by these characteristics. One either enjoys those characteristics and the use of them or one is offended by the use of them and opts to look beyond them into and about the person involved otherwise. Obama and Sotomayor are two people who have opted to not look beyond but to exploit these things. One is compromised to even discuss these aspects, yet here these two (and other Democrats) are, self-promoting an entitlement and presumption of self-grandiosity based upon these evocative characteristics.

And they are useful politically, so that undoubtedly explains what the incentive is to this self-promotional method in using race, ethnicity and gender as these, and other Leftwingers, do.

So Martin Luther King’s visions perished with the man. The Democrats are today crowning their racial, ethnic and gender supremacy reasoning, if it can be called that, with an enthusiastic supportive push toward confirmation of a racial-ethnic-gender supremacist, Sonia Sotomayor, to the Supreme Court.

Senator Leahy, who Chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat and exceptionally Leftwing man that he is, appeared yesterday on a televised interview with a reporter from FOX News, and proclaimed — several times in this one brief segment of only a few minutes (if that) — that he “comes from the most White state (in the nation)” and he used this statement as reasoning to rationalize how it is that he has no problems with Sotomayor’s ethnic supremacy.

Only in a Leftwing mind could such an absurd self-gratifying statement ever be made: Leahy — supposed bigwig in the Senate, Committee Chair and all of the Judiciary, hands on the buttons, so to speak, that gravely affect every single citizen for generations to come — Leahy actually gloried with obvious glee in his dismissal of Sotomayor’s ethnic supremacist views (“feelings”!) by justifying ethnic supremacy because he lives amidst saturated racialism, at least as to how Leahy describes the state of Vermont.

Not that Vermont is that, just that that’s Leahy’s gleeful description of Vermont: “…the most White state (in the nation)”. So that, then, makes Sotomayor wonderful, in Leahy’s perceptions (“feelings”!) to sit on the Supreme Court.

And Barack Obama, I believe the entire world by now has come to see who he is and what he’s motivated by and it’s not the Constitution, it’s his own partialism to Marx, amended by Islam and dosed greatly with racialism. Marxism relies on racialism because it targets those most in need to justify attacking those least in need, it’s the process of Marxism, of Communism, both of which are Socialism.

And Socialism is what Martin Luther King actually envisioned no longer being the standard: no longer perceiving (or “judg[ing]”) “people by the color of their skin” — since Socialism hinges upon judgements of that sort to maintain momentum, then, Socialism wouldn’t fit into the vision had by King, it’d be offensive to it, despite King’s penchant for “economic justice”.

Economic justice is only possible by economic liberty. Same with justice of all sorts: follow the proven process and you’ll meet with success (or, “justice”). No one is guaranteed justice, but justice is only possible when actions are just, when there’s a just process by which people understand what is right, what isn’t.

So enter our Constitution. It’s the process by which we are supposed to be guided as to what is right, and what isn’t, in the process of arriving at decisions that affect our nation, every citizen, our present and future.

If we follow what “feels” right or appeals to and only through our “feelings,” we run a ripshod course of anarchy: everyone going off anywhere when and as it feels right or perhaps feels wrong but someone’s compelled by “feelings” to act destructively.

Also heard earlier this morning was CA Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein who was, as Leahy was, gleeful in her enthusiastic support of Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Said Feinstein:

As a woman, I am delighted to vote for Sotomayor.

Race, ethnicity, gender, feelings

When did Senators become so ruled by feelings? By this squishy characteristic of what their gender was or was not? When was sexism introduced (or reintroduced) to the Senate as to how one votes and why? What about a Senator who votes based upon sexism? Or has “feelings” that enthuse about sexism? Is the sexism excused?

My vote is no, not excused, not at all. My expectations of any Senator is that they reason their way objectively through issues they remain dispassionate about, if only to arrive at a non-feeling, non-emoted conclusion. We all have feelings, it’s a case of doing work by consciously putting our feelings in perspective and applying reason to our perceptions instead.

Without that “higher order” of reason, we’re all returned to the open plains running from jaguars and crying out haplessly when the giant eagle swoops down and grabs our companion. Someone at some point in our human past decided to stop yelling and to invent tools to contend with the jaguars and giant eagles and to develop plans by which they (and we, later) were not hapless in the face of such threats.

Instead of that higher order of reason, however, what I see today in the Senate Democrats is a resurrection of that hapless, “feeling” state (and by that, something akin to hysteria, if Leahy’s and Feinstein’s statements are an indication of the Democrats overall and I believe that they are) wherein the giant eagle and the jaguar are their next elections and they’re running across the plain in search of the alter of gender, ethnicity and race, expecting salvation.

King’s vision failed. I liked Martin Luther King, but he failed. And I blame the Democrats for ruining his vision.

The Democrats have just erased all the objections anyone has ever had as to ethnic-supremacists on the Supreme Court. Perhaps it’s never been an objection if we are to take the feelings of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seriously. I do but I don’t agree with, nor respect, them.

Dot-Red Related:

My Conference Call With Senator Jeff Sessions” by Eric at THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Senator Jeff Sessions, who is also on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man I respect a very great deal, has this to add:

Sessions: Sonia Sotomayor ‘out of mainstream’


On the third day of Sotomayor’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a Republican Senator quoted Martin Luther King’s famous words (his “dream that one day…a man will [not be judged] by the color of his skin but the strength of his character…”) and that Senator then asked Sotomayor if she agreed with that.

Sotomayor responded: “I think that all Americans agree with that.”

However, she did not declare her individual agreement, nor did she answer the question itself. And how is it that Sotomayor knows what everyone else thinks and opines? Her response was both grandiose and evasive.

C O M M E N T S : now closed