She has commited to honoring International law?

http://books.google.com/books?id=qViXyy_58LsC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=the+international+judge+sotomayor&source=bl&ots=MsfNPZwJRH&sig=SOoS-n_Zc_zY3V4sCXQk2T9akS8&hl=en#PPR10,M1

What about sharia laws? Wonder if Arlen Spector can aks her tough questions?

"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"

-Sonia Sotomayor

..looks like I'm out of the running. I don't have the correct race or gender.

Oh good, Jasper. She seems to be steeped in sound, logical reasoning- the kind of sound, logical reasoning that considers ad hominems a valid argument, that is...

I'm actually happy about this. We knew that the nominee would be liberal, and my biggest fear was that he would go with Diane Wood, who is EXTREMELY pro-abortion. Sotomayor probably agrees with Roe, but at least she supports the Mexico City policy and has affirmed the rights of pro-life demonstrators. She's the best we can hope for.
http://secularprolife.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=57

What's wrong with what she said in the video? She didn't sound serious. I wouldn't be surprised if she later referred to precedent, and not policy, being established in the appellate..

No big deal.. Do we have anything on her at all? I couldn't find anything so far. She was a board member for the Maternity Center Association, but I don't really know what they do overall..

The Constitution is in conflict with empathy?? What a pig... Why do we need to hear what Rove has to say about it? Do you actually think he cares about the unborn?? Forget it..

Greg:

The Constitution is based on principles not on "feelings".

Principles do not change, feelings do and this is why an "empathetic" judge is so dangerous because they can be swayed "to and fro by every wind of doctrine".

And for you to say that Rove is not pro-life is a complete joke. Rove was the architect of the Bush victory over Ann Richards for Texas governor. The late Ann Richards is the mother of Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. Richards the younger has been trained in the workings of political machinery and Rove is the one guy that can stop her and FOCA. So please, give me a break and at least stop lying.

The last person on the planet to elect a pro life Judge is Obama.
Empathy for the unborn and new born. You owe me an irony meter obama.

So Rove can connive election victories.. This is no secret my friend. He wins one for Bush, and the opponent just so happens to be Ann Richards, THEREFORE he is pro-life?? Where's the logic? There are a lot of reasons why someone who is power hungry would want to mastermind an election victory, regardless of the values being played into either side.

and how am I lying? If anything, call me ignorant, and prove it so.. But I assure you I am not a liar..

I agree with you that the Constitution is based on principles and not feelings, but to say that empathy is completely contrary to those principles is down right un-American, in my opinion. And that is what he said - that the Constitution is in conflict with empathy and vice versa.

Empathy is what drives us to be willing to fight for everyone's right to those principles.

Am I supposed to be happy about this?

Help me out here.

Greg:

Principles first, empathy second.

You want me to empathize with gays and therefore turn over all state constitutional laws on marriage? If it feels good do it? Where is that in the Constitution?

You want me to empathize with women in difficult pregnancies and allow Roe v. Wade over the principle of sanctity of life? And you call yourself pro-life?

Why does not the church adopt your empathy value system? After all, isn't truth relative and not absolute. No, fist we must learn the truth and then apply those truths empathetically as required. Some times empathy requires rebuking and admonishing. Sometimes it requires edification and honor and approval. The plumb line is always principle and never empathy.

Weaving empathy into the interpretation of the Constitution is extremely dangerous and takes us off the path our Founders set for us. Sure it makes good campaign rhetoric for the unthinking masses but as policy it is extremely dangerous. History proves this.

As for being a liar, when you state that Karl Rove is not pro-life when everything he does says he is pro-life that is telling a lie which makes you a liar. Is he a pro-life activist? No. But that does not make him pro-choice.

HisMan, I agree with your statement "Principles first, empathy second."

But that's your problem. For some reason you seem want to throw me in some extreme category, by placing views in my reputation as if I ever espoused them. I took issue with the statement that the Constitution and empathy are contrary to each other. That is far from me believing that empathy comes before principle. Actually, it has nothing to do with it.

Because you found the ability to attribute this view to me however, you find the ability to take it a step further, and therefore conclude that perhaps I want you to "empathize with gay marriage, or perhaps allow Roe v. Wade over the principle of sanctity of life". No, I didn't say anything like this. You have two swings and no hits within our little conversation here, HisMan..

I never said anything about weaving anything into the Constitution that wasn't there. I don't want to use empathy to interpret the Constitution. I never said I did.

Rove is arguably one of the leading architects of the decisions leading up to the invasion in Iraq. To me, that is far from pro-life. However, you say that "everything he does says he is pro-life" and yet fail to tell me how this is so. I explained why I believe he is not. But I also didn't say he was pro-choice. You really don't like the idea of a continuous line of belief rather than the idea of every opinion being in the form of a dichotomy, do you? It appears everyone is either/or in your book.

"And you call yourself pro-life?"

Yes. Yes I do. And I would challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the

anti-abortion position

over

the pro-choice position,

and can do so with public funds.'"
------------------------------------------------------

Word mean things and how you 'choose' to use them reveal who you are and what your 'world view' is.

At least Sotomayor did not go the full distance and marginalize advocates of pre-natal humans as 'anti-choice'.

No one can quarrel with Ms Sotomayor's accomplishments and they are to be acknowledeged, but we can challenge her judicial temperment based on her decisions and her public and private statements.

Hopefully the US Senate will take seriously the 'Advice and Consent' responibility that the United States Constitution has conferred upon them and which they have sworn to uphold and rigorously examine Ms Sotomayors judicial philosophy and use the results to inform their vote to confirm or deny her appointment to the SCOTUS.

yor bro ken

This appointment really does not sound too bad, much better choice than an extreme pro abort many were afraid Barry would pick.

And it's good there will be another woman on the Supreme Court, I dont think any men had a chance of being selected this time.

Prop 8 ruling. There is a God.

Prop 8 stands and i suspect they will try to take it to the Supreme court. Looks like california court thinks it is still constitutional for voters to make decisions. Watch the bigotry come out again.

This appointment really does not sound too bad, much better choice than an extreme pro abort many were afraid Barry would pick.

And it's good there will be another woman on the Supreme Court, I dont think any men had a chance of being selected this time.

Posted by: Joanne at May 26, 2009 12:28 PM
________________________

Joanne:

Anything but a completely pro-life appointee is a complete disaster as this will continue the slaughter.

Don't any of us get what's going on?

Peace only comes by the complete defeat of your enemy, not in compromise and acceptance. In fact, this is why the pro-life movement needs a complete overhaul.

We should all be protesting vociferously any appointee that is not completely 100% pro-life.

Greg:

General Sarges, the Iraqi General ( a Christian) who stood against Saddam Hussein has persaonally told me that the Iraq War was the most compassionate thing the US could do for Iraq.

Man, you are one confused dude.

We should all be protesting vociferously any appointee that is not completely 100% pro-life.
Posted by: HisMan at May 26, 2009 12:34 PM

HisMan.... of course I agree with you, but the Death party is in firm control in the Senate. You are not going to get an appointee who is 100% pro life. Not going to happen.

Considering how anti life Barry is her positions on abortion do not, at first glance, seem to be nearly as radical as other people he has appointed, such as Sebelius.

It's absolutely imperitive that conservatives win big in 2010. Notice I said conservatives not republicans as Barry has a few republican enablers in congress.

And it's just as imperitive that the conservative judges on the Supreme Court stay healthy as long as Barry is the one appointing them. I'm just grateful the retiring justice was not one of them.

Prop 8 stands and i suspect they will try to take it to the Supreme court. Looks like california court thinks it is still constitutional for voters to make decisions. Watch the bigotry come out again.
Posted by: xppc at May 26, 2009 12:29 PM

That was a pleasant surprise. And yes I agree it likely is going to end up at the Supreme court.

So, she believes the courts set government policy, that judges should favor people of color, she has come out against gun-owner rights, and has expressed an opinion against the free speech rights of pro-life protesters....

... and she was initially nominted to district court bench by whom? Oh yeah. George H.W. Bush. And was praised by Republicans at the time as "an exemplary, outstanding justice. She has demonstrated that, repeatedly. She has shown compassion, wisdom, one of the great intellects on the court."

This is why we need Republican-nominated judges on the court benches, right...?

Hisman, how about when we supported Hussein no more than 25 years before the invasion? Was that compassion as well? The last time I checked, Hussein was the same person both then and the days leading up to the conflict. Maybe I am confused. Or maybe you just haven't heard of the industrial military complex

But I guess I'm a bit off topic here.

You said to Joanne:

"Anything but a completely pro-life appointee is a complete disaster as this will continue the slaughter."

and yet, how far did the "pro-life" appointees really get us? It seems that Sotamayor, in her effectively siding with us on the Mexico city policy and also on the appellate case between the pro-lifers and the cops in New York, has done just as much for pro-lifers in her life as any one of the current "pro-life" Justices on the court right now.

I am definitely not saying she is not pro-choice, because I would be willing to bet that she is. But it is unreasonable to draw the pro-life line of support at the point that you have in your statement to Joanne. If that's where we should draw the line, then really we shouldn't support any judicial appointment that has come to the SC since Roe v. Wade...

"has expressed an opinion against the free speech rights of pro-life protesters...."

I don't believe that's accurate. As an appellate judge she remanded the original decision that was against the pro-lifers, which means she sent it back for review, meaning, she was against the ruling that was against the pro-lifers.

Actually, she reversed the decision and remanded the case. That's even more in pro-life favor:

http://www.aul.org/ussc_potentials

Jasper 9:35am

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female that hasn't lived that life."

It certainly sounds racist, sexist, and condescending, don't you think?

Imagine the howls of outrage this statement would generate!

Greg,

You have made some excellent points! I was against the invasion of Iraq also. It made no sense since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

As I've said before, Barry could have appointed a pro abortion radical and I'm glad he didn't. Although I agree with you she is almost certainly much more on the side of the pro aborts her rulings on this subject (at least what we know so far) favor the pro life side much more.

I would love nothing better than to see abortion banned entirely and made illegal. However I also know that isnt going to happen any time soon. Even tiny steps forward are progress. And as pro aborts love to point out, even with President Bush in office and 100% committed to pro life issues not a lot got done.

Definitely Joanne.. And we can still ourselves remain 100% pro-life, we just also need to count our blessings and use this appointment, although not what we would want ideally, to our advantage.

I would imagine that a shrewd, clever pro-life attorney could give Sotomayor a good run for the money with a greater chance of success than perhaps a Justice such as Ginsberg...

For people like Sotomayor, it's like the Enlightenment never happened. Rationalism is outside their reality. They invent their own reality rather than seek the truth. She is more capricious than rational. Obama is as well. There is no internal consistency or logic in their arguments.

The reporter asks Obama about the deficit, and he says well it is not because of health care. Totally irrational nonsequitor!

Like her ruling the Ricci case. If your friends don't pass the test, it was biased. This is pre Enlightenment thinking, not based on logic nor science nor any other testable hypothesis. Pure caprice couched in legalese. Shocking.

Others in the judiciary have overturned her rulings because they were not based on the law! Scary.

She says out loud what she knows to be illegal, that she wants to make policy instead of interpret the law. This is despotism.

She practically disqualifies herself. Yet she knows through cronyism she is guaranteed a confirmation in a thoroughly corrupt review by her allies.

"and yet, how far did the "pro-life" appointees really get us?"

Greg,

I have no clue what you're talking about. If Judge Bork was nominated instead of Kennedy, Roe would have been overturned by now.

Believe me, Sotormayer will be voting with liberals on this court every step of the way.

Souter is evil, he totally duped conservatives.

Sotomayor, her rulings repeatedly overturned.
Reason: rulings lacked legal basis.

Bork, no rulings ever overturned.
Reason: thorough legal reasoning.

"If Judge Bork was nominated instead of Kennedy, Roe would have been overturned by now."

An easy statement to make in hindsight, but I'll take your word for it.

"Believe me, Sotormayer will be voting with liberals on this court every step of the way."

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on this. But I also won't be surprised if she every once in awhile commits to a rational jurisprudence on some of the issues pertaining to abortion or our stance as pro-lifers. That's why I believe a good attorney might do better against her than perhaps against a former ACLU attorney like Ginsburg

That is interesting, hippie. Did not know that.

It's also interesting to remember how liberals totally demonized Clarence Thomas. Yet no one ever accused them of being racist as far as I can recall.

Yet the race card is already being used for Sotomayer. Liberal rags like the New York Times are basically saying Republicans better not vote against her.

Also the media is playing up her rags to riches story. How "compelling" it is that she was raised poor by a single mom and how much she has accomplished. On that basis alone the liberal media seem to think she is qualified.

Yet was anything made of Thomas's equally compelling rags to riches story? Of course not because he's a conservative!

The hypocrasy of liberals never ceases to amaze me.

Joanne 6:15PM

Thomas had dared to leave the liberal plantation. How dare he not think the way, well, all black people are supposed to think.

Thomas was persecuted for his politics, not his alleged lousy pick up lines.

Feminists and liberals were silent when Bill Clinton was accused of everything from exposing himself to rape.

A double standard here for liberals and conservatives? Nahhhhh.

Posted by: Mary at May 26, 2009 3:40 PM

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female that hasn't lived that life."

"Imagine the howls of outrage this statement would generate!"

----------------------------------------------------
Jasper,

Your goldnen goose is cooked! Might as well consider a run for the nearest border. I hope you can speak Canadia or Spanish.

Mary,

You are not olly olly all in free, yet.

If you are not at least an ethnic minority and a liberal you may still be in danger of being collarred by the PC thought and speech police.

"Badges, BADGES, we don't need no stinkin BADGES!"

"We are liberals and extreme left wing liberals, aka 'progressives' and 'Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we, can, can!."

Steel yourself for a sensitivity indoctrination in a re-education training camp.

If your case is serious enough they may resort to scalpels and perform a limbic-ectomy.

Resistance is not futile, but they will stop at nothing to achieve full asimilation into the collective 'left' speak, think [or what the progressives consider thought] and do.

Free Mary, Free Mary, Free Mary!

The 'left' screams foul premptively so I thought I would sound some distress signals before they come for you.

yor bro ken

For the firs time in my lifetime we are experiencing rolling blackouts in Texas.

The first time the power was our for over an hour, the second time at least half a hour.

Now that is some 'change' from the status quo of reliable electrical service. We are going second world.

yor bro ken

Mary,

I agree about Thomas, although I think another reason the left detested him was because he got out of poverty himself. It had nothing to do with "affirmative action" or anything else. He's a true success story.

Also it's amazing to see how fast the National Organization for Women has come out in favor of Sotomayer. No such support for Sarah Palin. Of course it's because Sarah is a pro life conservative Christian. And NOW is radically pro abort I believe.

Hi Joanne,

NOW would be more appropriately named "The National Organization for Some Women".

Mary,

Thought you might like to log this bit of liberal latino hypocrisy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york020603.asp

Dems to Miguel Estrada: You’re Not Hispanic Enough

Byron York
February 6, 2003 9:00 a.m.

But to hear representatives from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and others tell it, the Estrada nomination should be killed not because of Estrada's alleged refusal to answer questions or because of constitutional obligations but because Estrada, who was born and raised in Honduras before coming to the United States and learning English at the age of 17, is simply not authentically Hispanic.

"Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname," said New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "It means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American." Even though Estrada is of Hispanic origin, and even though he lives in this country, Menendez argued, he falls short of being a true Hispanic. "Mr. Estrada told us that him being Hispanic he sees having absolutely nothing to do with his experience or his role as a federal court judge. That's what he said to us." Menendez found that deeply troubling.

Angelo Falcon, an official of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, railed about the "Latino Horatio Alger story that's been concocted" about Estrada's success and, more generally, about the "concocted, invented Latino imagery" of Estrada's life.

"It's not good enough to simply say that because of someone's genetics or surname that they should be considered Hispanic."

yor bro ken

Ken,

Give me a break. Just how asanine are things becoming? I thought we judge people solely on qualifications or lack thereof.

I listen to this wailing about "past injustices" justifying modern day reverse discrimination.
Folks nothing, absolutely nothing, remedies past injustice and discrimination. The best remedy is to make certain NO man or woman is ever again discriminated against for reasons of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Dr. King preached judging a man by the content of a his character, not his skin color.

Posted by: Mary at May 26, 2009 8:14 PM

"NOW would be more appropriately named "The National Organization for Some Women"."

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

Mary,

If I might just amend your modified description just a little bit I believe it will more accurately reflect the constituency of the membership of NOW.

NOMLLW: National Organization of Mostly Liberal Lesbian Women.

There may be a few confused straight conservative women in the crowd, but they would be as scarce as a Muslim at a Bar Mitzvah.

yor bro ken

I call NOW..Non Organized Women.

Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada ought to start a club for those who are not liberal enough to be authentic.

Log Cabin Republicans would surely qualify.

Not liberal enough to be authentically homosexual.

I am glad that caucasians are not saddled with this 'disability'.

But I guess to liberals, caucasian conservatives do not qualify to be authentically human. In their understanding that limbic brain thing, (white racists still believe the same thing about non-whites and jews) must disqualify us from making that next step on the evolutionary ladder. The liberals have us hemmed in on the same rung with the knuckledraggin neanderthals.

Liberals must believe that all prenatal humans have limbic brains that they do not loose until they take that first breath of fresh air. Kind of like the tadpole losing it's tail and gills when it becomes a frog.

Look for legislation to allow or require elimination of all infants who do not loose their limbic brain. Got to clean up the gene pool.

yor bro ken

Heather,

The NOMLLW gals are organized. Confused but organized. Give them their due.

I would pay to see a survey of their leadership compared to their membership as to sexual orientation, ethnicity, idelogoy, religion.

That contrast would be illuminating to the membership.

yor bro ken

Joanne,
George Bush is not pro-life.

Miguel Estrada, who magaged to escape from the liberal plantation, is now persona non grata with liberal latinos. A man without an ethnic identity. Poor fellow he will have to settle for being a plain old 'American'.

Miguel seems have adjusted nicely to that identity. I consider it an honor that he chose to join us non-ethnocentric people.

yor bro ken

yor bro ken

Other than female, what do you think the single largest common denominator is in their leadership and in their membership?

yor bro ken

Excuse me Joanne, your B-student hero appears to have some clay feet:

"Thanks to his sterling academic record, Thomas was admitted to the law schools at Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania. He chose Yale because of the financial support it offered him as part of its affirmative-action policy to attract students from racial and ethnic minorities. At Yale, he continued to do well academically, receiving mostly passes on Yale's grading scale of honors, pass, low pass, and fail."

Anita,

Please provide link to your source. Context and perspective are always helpful when considering someone else's opionion.

But even if all that you cite is true, Clarence Thomas made all he could of the opportunity that presented itself.

What was it President Reagan said when asked to comment on Jesse Jackson getting a captured naval pilot released from his captors in Lebanon.

Oh yeah, I remember: "You can't argue with success."

yor bro ken

Ken,

I find it so ironic that it is the enlightened, tolerant liberals who forever make an issue of race, then call the rest of us racists!

I wish they would take the advise of someone like me who spent my childhood alone in more diversity than they will ever see in a lifetime.
The best way to overlook our differences is to not make an issue of them in the first place!
BTW,while growing up, I never heard of diversity.

Ken,

Another thing, Thomas apparently qualified for admission to law school, he wasn't a poor or mediocre student who would otherwise have never been admitted.

Ken,

I would argue that financial assistance should be based solely on need, not race or gender. Also the student must truly qualify for admission, not just be filling a quota.

History Unfolding

By Pat Dollard

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have
written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think
there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just
a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist,
but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now
coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I
can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and
how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is
something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten
to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement
that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back?
Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve,
which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion
dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not
tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and
mine. And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously
just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are
the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought
this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our
elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally
de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools,
ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are
exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot
write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting,
teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of
protesting every close election (now violently in California over a
proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain
between one man and one
woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible
just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by
allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of
life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our
voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing
prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is
on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare
and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I
teach college and know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is
staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x
ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot
name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to
slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows
anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town
as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with
real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn
about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you
have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian
defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh
of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then
demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe
is more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to
one word: Change.

Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for
my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together,
something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my
assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart,
and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure.
Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same
nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience
what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the
savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about
whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he
was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people
with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through
great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.

And promises. Economic times were tough, people
were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot.
And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his
"brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly
elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great
Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power,
department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The
kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to
think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to
the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial
complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control,
health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill
pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He
did it with a compliant media-did you know that? And he did this all in the
name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted
for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in
1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When
Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in
the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed
into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated,
cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals,
laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years-a shorter time
span than
just two terms of the U. S. presidency-it was
rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning
children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best
of
intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved
with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to
emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the
objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with
disgust); I can
believe what history is shouting to me from across
the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes,
having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I
am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to
look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I
believe it. I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

Liberal heads are exploding over Sotomayor.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/111520/453

It was one ruling upholding the Mexico City Policy, I don't see why they are calling her "anti choice" because of ONE ruling that was positive for those who don't support abortion and forced paying with OUR tax dollars overseas......

I'll agree with those who say she won't be a good justice.

I'll also agree with those who say she isn't as bad as we could have gotten.

But I think after all is said and done, the only thing I can say about Sotomayor is that I probably would have liked her mom a lot better! (Not as a justice, but as a person.)

Joanne - good find. Am posting, giving you the HT.

Thanks for reposting Jill.

Liz I see your point, but in my opinion this post just goes to show how rabidly pro abort some people are. The fact she agreed with the pro life side ONCE doesn't prove much, but isn't it interesting to see how the pro aborts went into an absolute meltdown?

Joanne, I agree with you completely. It's almost amusing to watch the meltdown. Hopefully they'll be at each other's throats and expose to even more people the fact that the concept of "choice" is using words to cloak the truth... that they want to destroy innocent life.