Monthly Archives: May 2009

Is Associate Justice Samuel Alito a Racist?

sam alito

Following his nomination by President George W. Bush to the post of Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, Judge Samuel Alito’s membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) was raised.

So he belonged to an organization at Princeton, what’s the big deal?

Well, normally membership to organizations might not mean anything, but what if a future member of the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, one of nine lifetime appointments, was to have belonged to an organization which had as its expressed goals the limiting of admissions of women and minorities to a college or university?

Under today’s standards for choosing members of the Supreme Court as outlined by Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al, Justice Alito’s membership in such an organization would have been seen as “overtly racist” and as a certain “disqualification”.

Using the standards of R, H, B et al, we would be forced to make the following comparison: “What if a Latina nominated to the Supreme Court had belonged to an organization which stated as one of its founding principles the exclusion of men and especially white men from a college campus?

“We would have to conclude that such a membership was racist, and that she should be excluded from serving on the highest court in the land; that she should be excluded from being rewarded with one of only nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court”.

But what if that Associate Justice had forgotten about his membership in this nefarious organization? Or at the very least claimed to have forgotten? When questioned by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about his involvement, his membership, in CAP Alito claimed to have no memory of being a member of the group. It was pointed out however, that in his 1985 ‘Personal Qualifications Statement’ when applying to be an Assistant Attorney General, he listed his membership in CAP as a qualification.

So, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court claims on an application in 1985 to belong to a campus organization, but 20 years later says he can’t remember belonging to the group? It can only be concluded that Mr. Alito lied. He either lied when he applied to be an Assistant Attorney General, or he lied under oath during his confirmation hearing when he claimed he couldn’t remember belonging to CAP.

Seems to me that a nominee to the United States Supreme Court not only appears to have belonged to a racist, sexist organization while attending law school, but that he also lied about his membership in the same organization.

Under the newly constitued rules for determining a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rules as imposed by the esteemed legal team of Rush, Hannity, Beck et al, it would appear that Associate Justice Samuel Alito is not only a racist, but also a liar. Either of which, or both of which, would certainly be a disqualification.

You can’t have it all one way fellas. A standard of qualification is a standard. You can’t have your judical cake and eat it too.

1 Comment

Posted by on May 30, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court


Tags: , , ,

Are Obama and Sotomayor Racists?

So, Rush has declared that Sotomayor is a racist. Thus she must be a racist. At least that’s what Rush and his 14 million listeners believe. Thank God it’s only 14 million, because that means the majority of the Republican Party is still in control of its senses. Maybe one day the adults will once again run the GOP.

El Rushbo declared today, “I said this on Tuesday, to tell the American people who Obama is. She is a reflection of Barack Obama’s own racial identity, his own bigotry. That’s why she was chosen.”

On her qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court Rush said, “Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ comment is absolutely disqualifying.

“When a nominee for the United State’s Supreme Court, one of only nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, one of only nine makes an overtly brazen racist comment about tens of millions of American citizens while she is a judge and that nominee is rewarded for it with a nomination to the Supreme Court, we don’t need lectures. I don’t need lectures from any columnist or any commentator on TV about decorum.”

On commenting about opposing President Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter Rush said, “But Republicans are supposed to sit by and watch this person who is utterly unqualified be confirmed? The only reason the Republicans are putting duct tape on their mouths is to appease critics. They’re being told that shutting up and holding back is smart politics.”

There’s something “self-destructive,” Rush said, about Republicans not challenging Sotomayor, adding: “Letting Sonia Sotomayor get away with her statement is renouncing decades of progress in civil rights. Do you understand what a setback this is?”

Rush Limbaugh is going to lecture President Obama about “renouncing decades of progress in civil rights”? You’ve got to be kidding me. The only “setback” occurring from this nomination is the setback to the Republican Party if it actually listens to the likes of Limbaugh, Levine, Beck, et al.

Maha Rushdi continued his attack on Sotomayor saying, “A woman as a judge makes a blatantly racist, bigoted comment and she is rewarded with a promotion to the Supreme Court?”

“So we have made a lot of progress with civil rights but now, with this? How do you get promoted in the Barack Obama administration? By hating white people or even saying you do or that they’re not good — put them down, whatever.

“However, those who do vote for her are voting to enshrine bigotry on the Supreme Court and to renounce decades of racial progress.” The question needs to be asked, said Rush: How could a president nominate such a candidate? Rush added: “That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.”

So, to get promoted in the Obama Administration you have to either be a racist or do something racist? If you are Barack Obama anything you do is questioned as racist against white Americans. Did I hear correctly? Is Rush Limbaugh, the titular head of the Republican Party actually comparing a very respected, highly qualified judge to Daivd Duke?

How can someone like Rush, himself a sexist, bigoted, racist, call someone else a racist? And make no mistake, Rush is a sexist, bigoted, racist. He routinely calls women “babes” and “feminazi”, and once told a Black caller to “remove the bone from her nose” and to call him back.. He most recently claimed it must have been hard for President Obama to order the Navy to shoot the Black teenage pirates. Rush is a racist, and he and others like him are leading the GOP to its own destruction.

1 Comment

Posted by on May 29, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court


Tags: , ,

Is Judge Sotomayor a Racist?

Tuesday, President Barack Obama made history – once again – when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Almost immediately, numerous right-wing radio talk hosts began smearing Judge Sotomayor as a racist and a bigot.

These hosts have been citing remarks Judge Sotomayor made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in 2002, when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh claimed Sotomayor is a “reverse racist”; radio host Mark Levin called her a “bigot”; and Glenn Beck claimed Sotomayor made “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard. … She sure sounds like a racist.”

Well, if Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine and Glenn Beck said it then it must be true.

Of course what the right-wing doesn’t do is say under what circumstances Judge Sotomayor made her allegedly racists statement.

Judge Sotomayor was specifically referring to the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Something a woman, and especially a woman of color, might have just a little more practical knowledge about than a white male.

So, if Judge Sotomayor is a racists for daring to suggest that a Latina might be better qualified than a white male regarding race and sex discrimination cases, then what about Justice Clarence Thomas’ comments made during his Senate confirmation hearings responding to the question of why he “want[ed] this job,” Thomas responded, “I believe … that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does.”

How can Justice Thomas “bring something different to the Court”? Is his educational background significantly different than the other Justices? No. What about his legal or judicial background, is it significantly different from the other Justices? No. So the difference must be, maybe, his race?

In making such a statement, according to the standards put in place by Rush, Levine and Beck, Justice Clarence Thomas must be a racist and a bigot.

During Tuesday’s broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said of Sotomayor: “So here you have a racist. You might — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power.  Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”

So, according to Rush, not only is Judge Sotomayor a racist, but President Obama is a racist as well?

Rush continued his theorizing, “In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sonia Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it’s appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, ‘their experiences as women and people of color’ — reverse racism. She’s a minority. Only she can understand the horrible trials and tribulations minorities have gone through, and the courts are the places where their grievances are redressed — and they’re not. The court is where the law is dealt with.

“In the same speech, Sonia Sotomayor went on to say, quote, ‘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.’ If that’s not a racist statement, I don’t know what is — reverse racist or whatever.

During his Tuesday radio show broadcast, Levin claimed of “so-called moderate” Democratic senators voting on Sotomayor: “These people  need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist — and I  will now say what I actually believe — who is a bigot — that’s right, I  said it — then they need to pay a political price for this.”

Levin later said, “Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted.” He continued, “Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She said, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Now I’m sure they’ll spin it. I’m sure they’ll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way — there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That’s not based on somebody’s content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That’s based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone — that statement alone should disqualify her. Period.”

So, would Mr. Levine also say that based on his “generalized statement about race and ethnicity” that Justice Clarence Thomas, based upon “that statement alone – that statement alone should disqualify him. Period?”

On Tuesday’s edition of his Fox “News” program, Glenn Beck said Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comments “smacks of racism” and is “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard.” Beck later claimed, “I don’t like the charges of, ‘Oh, you’re a racist. They’re a racist.’ Very few people are racist.

“There are racists and they’re bad people. And — but it’s — most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this — I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here.”

Would Beck ascribe the same standard to Clarence Thomas? If he were to listen to Justice Thomas’ statement would he say, “But when I hear this — I mean, gee. He sure sounds like a racist here?”

So, is Judge Sotomayor a racist as Limbaugh, Levine and Beck claim she is?

Well, first, considering the source; and second, looking at what was said in context, and from the position of thinking adult; The only possible answer is no she is not a racist, anymore than Justice Clarence Thomas is a racist, and the conservatives are extremely hard pressed to oppose her if this is their best shot.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 28, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court


Tags: , , , ,

Lest We Forget

sf cemetery on memorial day 07.5

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother…”

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 25, 2009 in Patriotic


Tags: , ,

Cheney is not a Patriot


Darth Cheney comes out of his lair to justify a failed presidency, and a tarnished legacy, and he does it while not wearing a flag pin anymore? Has anyone else noticed that?

The man who claims to be trying to protect America by attacking the current President’s policies is no longer patriotic? Or was his flag wearing patriotism just for show?

Cheney doesn’t love his country. He doesn’t give a damn about America, or about what America is, or ever has been. To Cheney, the first and most important person, place or thing is me, myself and I.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2009 in Politics


Tags: ,

Democrats won’t fund Gitmo closing?

GOP Spokesman Rush Limbaugh, reading from an Associated Press story yesterday said, “President Barack Obama’s allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison next January, a top Democratic official said Tuesday.  With debate looming on Obama’s spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo’s 241 detainees.”

Limbaugh immediately questioned why the Democrats in Congress would turn on the President, “Now, why would this be?” he asked. “Obama said he’s going to close Club Gitmo in January 2010.  Now, the Democrats say sorry, pal, we’re not going to give you the money for that.” 

Problem is El Rushbo, under his usual motus operandi (MO for all you ditto heads), only told a sliver of truth about what was actually said. Had Maha Rushdi dug a little deeper he would have found that what Democratic Party leaders in the Congress actually said was that the Senate was not going to fund closing Gitmo until it saw what the administration’s plan was., “The administration has not come up with a plan at this point,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president’s direction on what happens to the detainees.”

Durbin said that he could support transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. “Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists. And not a single one (terrorist) has escaped.”

Durbin said the Congress simply wasn’t going to fund the closing blindly, “The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn’t been announced. And the administration said, ‘Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we’ll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'”

Rush further bloviated on the topic asking, “Why would the Democrats turn on Obama on this?  Why?  They don’t want to lose in 2010, and the polling data on closing Guantanamo must not be on the same page with Obama’s desire to do so.”

Well Rush actually polling data shows just the opposite, there’s a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that 53 percent of Americans said the United States should shutter the controversial facility in Cuba and find another way to deal with the prisoners there. While 42 percent of those polled, including 69 percent of Republicans, said terrorism suspects should remain at the prison. Most Democrats (68 percent) and independents (55 percent) said they would prefer another way to handle the detainees.  So basically the country seems to fall in line on this issue along the same political lines as the last presidential election. No surprise there. One side wants to try to do things the right way, the legal way, while the other wants to do everything based on fear mongering. You figure out which party fits which description.

Rush said, “Fear is the reason, because the word is out that if we close Gitmo that some of these clowns are going to be released in the United States, and people are not excited about that.”

No one Rush, repeat NO ONE has ever said that anyone convicted, or currently suspected, of being a terrorist at Gitmo were going to be released in the United States. Some of the prisoners may be transferred to federal prisons in the U.S., but no one has said they would be released here. This is once again Rush playing on the fear of his listeners.

Rush, Hannity, et al jumped on the story some time ago that some of the Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs held at Gitmo might be permitted to live in the United States, Chinese Muslims cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists. The part of being cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists is the part Rush, Hannity, et al always conveniently leave out when discussing the release of terrorists into America.

So, what have we learned today?

First, Democratic Party Members of Congress have not refused to fund closing Gitmo; it said they want to see the Obama Administration’s plan for doing so before it will discuss funding.

Second, Rush only tells his listeners what he wants them to hear, what he hopes and wishes to be true. That the Democratic Party is splintering, and that Americans are living in fear. You hold on to those happy thoughts Rush, those and some fairy dust and one day you’ll fly. Oh wait, you have oxycotton for that.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 20, 2009 in GITMO, Politics


Tags: , ,

Did the United States of America Torture Prisoners?

During the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” did United States personnel torture, or abuse, prisoners in violation of international treaties prohibiting such torture or abuse?


This prisoner had electric wires attached to his genitals, and was forced to stand like this for hours. If he dropped his arms or moved from the box, he was shocked.


Why would American soldiers take a prisoner, strip him of his clothes, and then threaten him with guard dogs?


Stripping a prisoner; forcing woman’s underwear on his head, and tying him to a metal bunk. The purpose of this interrogation technique would be?


Forcing prisoners to lie on top of each other naked. This would be necessary because?


And here we have an example of the non-torture technique known as waterboarding.


Forcing an injured prisoner to lie naked on the cement floor. This is humane treatment of the wounded?


And the purpose of tying a prisoner, naked and upside from a metal bunk would be?

The above images point out quite clearly that American personnel, under the Bush Administration, committed criminal acts in violation of international treaties regarding the humane treatment of prisoners. There is no valid reason for this. Someone ordered our country off of this cliff, and the only way to place the United States back on the moral high ground is to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible.

1 Comment

Posted by on May 19, 2009 in Torture


Tags: , , ,