they'd all be extremist right wingers

One hears the leftists chirp that "the GOP has gone so far right they used to be moderate" one way or another.

But i realized the truth is that about 10-20 years ago the left went far left, not economically or militarily but in totally abandoning national intrest, with amnesty, etc. I would bet a great deal of cash that every American President of any party save Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford (and perhaps FDR) would, if they had to vote today, vote Republican down the line. I gaurntee that if you gave Woodrow Wilson or Andy Jackson or FDR or Truman or JFK or Thomas Jefferson a week to re-adjust themselves to the current political landscape, would all report revolt and disgust at the existence of such a thoroughly and proudly nearly treasonist Democratic Party. I mean could you imagine if any of the founding generation got to hear about Eric Holder or about what happened in Brown v. Board of Education and dispirate impact law?


What do you think Jefferson and Madison would say if they heard that when Californian voters voted to not give there tax dollars to illegals in free welfare that the Supreme Court in 1996 over ruled California and deemed there voicing of their will unconstuinal? They would become nihillists i'm sure and booze it up.

Gerald Ford: Not Who You Thought He Was

In reading Jeffrey Toobin's over-rated book on the Supreme Court, "The Nine" (which essentially argues that liberal judges are in the real tradition of the Founders), I was suprised to discover that Gerald Ford had come out as a vocal defender of Michigan Unviersity's system of massive racial preferences during the bro-ha-ha over Grutter v. Bollinger, the Michigan Unviersity Affirmtive Action case. But even more eyebrow raising was this quote from a New York Times Op-Ed former President Ford penned entitled, "Inclusive America: Under Attack",

"A pair of lawsuites would prohibit Michigan and other unviersitys from even considering race as one of many other factors weighed by admision counslers such a move would condemn future college students to suffer the cultural and social impoverishment that inflicted my generation"

Perhaps I was wrong to affix this kind of liberalism to only those under 65 years of age. Ford is dead ofcourse. I thought his generation, that of the WW2, was proud of themselves and there nation and there culture. I didn't know they scorned the wholesome, united social and cultural atomsphere of the 1940's as "cultural and social impoverishment" inflicting them? If only Gerald Ford had turned on a TV in the last 20 years of his life and seen what a rap video is he probably wouldn't have written such nonsence. So according to Ford, we should scorn and throw away the culture of the American army on D-Day in favor of the American culture of 2009 when the chart topping refrain on the radios of the nation is "Move Bitch, Get Out the Way!"? Hmm.
This is a phenmonon in Modern America. Those who have spent little to no time in a black ghetto, never seen a hip hop video, never gone to school with African Americans in signfigant numbers, and who have, overall, the least knowledge of black or latino ghetto culture are consitantly the very ones speaking about how they know that increased spread of latino & black ghetto culture is not just good but "essential" at any Unviersity and know that Michigan Univiersity student will sufferer tremendously in the absence of black and latino culture on their campus. These people who have spent the least time in the black or latino communitys and who have the least knowledge of either, have the highest opinion of both and claim for a fact that the academic underachievment, chronically high rates of violence, crime, illegitimacy and poverty among both latinos and blacks in America is the result of white racism & white oppression.
However, those white people who actually know black hip hop culture, who actually know blacks and latinos, go to school with them, work with them, live in the same neigborhoods, have a radically different more modest view of blacks and how much they "deserve" the racial preferences that Ford supports. Those whites that have the most exsperience with and knoweldge of black Americans have a much less grandiously positive view of the African American community compared to those whites like Gerald Ford who have virtually zero familiarity with the black community that Ford claims he was deprived of as a young man at Michigan Unviersity. Those whites who actually know and live with or around black culture do not complaim like Gerald Ford about the lack of it (especially at the places they send there children). They don't rejoice it the fact that there kids who go to the diverse schools Ford loves, schools that are 60 or 80 or 90 percent African American and latino. No, they want, more than anything, to send there kids to the least "diverse" schools possible, the whitest, most asian schools. They don't think there kids are suffering from any lack of black aka hip hop culture (which is the exact kind of "diversity" Ford is writing about whether he knows it or not). To the contrary, the parents of white children who have real knowledge of black (and latino hip hop) culture, who live in mostly minority neigborhoods, think there children are suffering from the presence of viscerally anti-academic black/hip hop culture, which Ford thinks Unviersitys must have as much as possible of.

"American Orginal: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia" & Liberal Jurisprudence

I've been reading the more intresting sections of Joan Biskupic's biography of Antonin Scalia and the chapter focused on race related cases prompted ever-more realizations of the multi-faceted stupidity and fallacies of liberal jurisprudence when it comes to dispirate impact and racial preferences. Biskupic writes,

1. "some critics argued, he was abandoning the core responcibility of courts in America because the neutral rules he advocated could not bring about racial equality."

The "responcbility of courts in America" i thought was to go by the Constuinency not by what they would like the Law to be? So to liberal judges there job as judges in cases relating to race is to help "bring about racial equality", thats the Courts rule in this nation apparently according to them. Forget that racial exact equality will never be achieved if not by force, is achieving "racial equality" what the Founders said the Courts had to do? Is it our founding document? No.

2. In the book's "Dilemmas of Race" chapter a lawyer arguing for racial perference infront of the Supreme Court is questioned by Scalia who asks for the lawyer to provide a legal basis for the practise of nati-white discrimination he was arguing for. The liberal lawyer responds, "Segregation is harmful. Intergration...has benefits."

Isn't it funny how liberal jurists talk about "segragation" as if black Americans are constantly trying to integrate socially, culturally, georgraphically, etc. with white Americans and white Americans refuse. It's completely unreal. Blacks and whites are, segragated by there own will. Why is it the Supreme Court's business or duty or domaine to act in order to bridge gaps between racial groups or to create diverse enviorments. They can try to do that as private citizens if they love diversity but not as Jurists. Let's be frank, whites and blacks watch different TV, different movies, they dance differently, they eat different food at different places, they watch different amounts of TV, they play and watch different sports, they live in different neigborhoods, sit at different lunch tables, etc. All with little variation usually. But lets remember that this by whites and blacks choise. Whites don't force African Americans to be the biggest demographic for TV shows like "Molesha" and "Sista, Sista".

3. In the famous Michigan affirmtive action case in the early Bush years, you will remember the nation learned that the Michigan Unviersity point system accorded a applicant more points for being black than the points tsudents received for being a honor student a all state athelete and the editor of the school paper.
And why did they side with Michigan because they said creating a "diverse student body" was not just a plus in Michigans view but a essential need of Michigan to be adequete school. This is the claim that racial diversity is "essential" to a Unvieristy being excellent. Because if only 2 black girls are in a Algebra class how can the students in that class adequetly learn Algebra, right? Sure......

My conclusion is once again, that we don't have a Constuition so long as the left controls or neutralizes the Conservatives from actually following the Constuition. I don't know why so few conservatives have the gusto or balls to just say that liberals don't give a damn for our founding document. I mean, Brown v. Board of Education is simply unconstuitionial, so is Sotomayor's descion in the Ricci case. Like Scalia once remarked, "The Jurist that looks away from the Constuition invetiably looks into himself for their ruling." And with Sonya Sotomayor and Charles Ogletree, looking into one's self for a ruling means judging cases by your racial prejudice against white people as we see in boths records. Sotomayor had no true judicial philosphy, she didn't always ignore the Constuition as a Apellate judge i'm sure. But when it came to those important issues, when cases dealt with issues of race, Sotomayor let her race do her jurisprudence. Her jurisprudence on issues like dispirate impact and anti-white legal discrimination, Sotomayor could care less about judicial precedent or the Constuition, she just wanted to stick her finger in the eye of the Gringo every chance she got.

A historic moment lost upon us all?

I'm not the first to suggest this but just a few months ago did the first lesbian join the Supreme Court without the media saying a word about it?

Sotomayor sure looks the part but ofcourse delving into her rather murky sexual life would have only hurt Judge Sotomayor's chances thus the media seems to have not researched the matter at all.

She divorced and never remarried and their doesn't seem to be any evidence of Sotomayor batting for both teams at present and i cannot attest to the contrary but i'd guess she's, at the very least, not all that intrested in men but then again and i wouldn't be so suprised if a former girlfriend did surfaced in the media. But then again, wouldn't any former lover just be doing harm to the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender communities agenda by outing herself? And not to be nasty, who would really want to be known as a former conquest of Judge Sonya Sotomayor (pictured above)?

Not that her sexual orientation matters to me. Her ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, her membership to LA RAZA is what scares me.

Oddly enough researching Sotomayor's sexual orienation`, i came across this funny throwaway line from a lesbian site called lezgetreal.com on this very subject:

"Judge Sotomayor may be a lesbian, but even that should not disqualify her from sitting on the bench. All indications are that Sotomayor is only an activist judge if you squint really hard and take the line that an activist judge is someone who follows the laws as they are written. Indeed, one study published back when Bush II was in office found that most of the activist judges, that is a judge who ignores the law and inserts their own opinions into a case, were Conservatives and not Liberals."

Which makes me wonder: do liberals really believe themselves when they spout such obvious nonsence?

The Last WASP: Will Obama give the WASP's a collective, judicial slap in the face or not?

I've seen a picture of the new Supreme Court together, smiles, robes and all, and what do i see: a African American, a latino women, a couple catholics, a nice jewish girl and but one aged (soon to be retired) white haired WASP (the group which happens to have founded and built this nation and the Supreme Court's very existence). So now WASP's are, by far, the least repersented group on the Supreme Court and in danger of having no fellow WASP's on the bench, it's a warning sign of things to come people (that is a warning sign for WASP's and those who don't want to be governed over by a President Jesse Jackson in 23 years time).

I mean every other group (minus asians) gets to complain about "repsenation" what about us? And this is not just mindless racial nepotism it's in the WASP's self intrest and in our national intrest for the more Sotomayor's and the less WASP's that get on the Court usually means the more the Constuition will be torn to shrewds in the name of legalizing anti-white tyrannical "discrimination" law.

I end with a question. When the Court's lone WASP Judge Stevens leaves the Court (as he is exspected to do this year) there will be not one WASP on the Court as i've said. Not one reprsentative of the founding stock of this nation (and its almost sole inhabitants up until a few decades ago). The obvious question arises:

Will President Obama nominate a WASP to replace Stevens?

My humble guess is that Obama won't because the Media surely won't even discuss the matter of a potentially WASP-less Court at all and WASP's (who as a group seem to have somewhat lost there minds on acid in 1967) are to guilt-ridden to stand up for themselves anyways.

A rule for judging Supreme Court nomineess

After Sonia Sotomayor and Harriet Myers, the following should be very clear:

Whenever an adminstation's Supreme Court nominee is announced and people within that President's own party begin saying that there not qualified and not even that smart, take it as a sign they shouldn't have been nominated (and it's usually an indicator as in these two cases that they are a de facto affirmtive action nominee).

David Frum and many other couragious conservatives warned us that Bush nominee, Harriet Myers, was totally unqualified and Jeffrey Rosen and fewer liberals warned us (mostly when her name was floating around as a possibility) that Sonya Sotomayor would be unqualfied and not at the level of a Anton Scalia to say the least. If only the left had listened to Jeffrey Rosen when he warned them in the New Republic a latino activist (and memember of the racist LA RAZA) whose only desire as a judge is not to interpert the constuition but to advance her racial group's intrests and stick her finger in the eye of white as much as possible wouldn't now be sitting on the Supreme Court bench.