If Samuel Alito had said in a private conversation 30 years ago that he was a better judge than Thurgood Marshall because Alito is white and Marshall was black, Judge Alito would not only never have become Justice Alito, he’d probably be forced to resign in disgrace. Conservatives would decry this decision precisely becauseit was 30 years ago and a private conversation, but the Left would say that such statements offer absolute proof of racism and, of course, racism is the greatest evil any white man can commit.

President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, a leftist activist judge named Sonia Sotomayor, however, being a leftist activist judge who also happens to be a Hispanic Woman, gets a pass for saying precisely the same thing… 8 years ago… in public.

Sotomayor said in a 2001 lecture at the University of California at Berkeley (go figure), “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.” In other words, coming up from a background of poverty and being of a particular race and sex makes one better at rendering impartial decisions. Again, if a white, male, conservative judge had said the same thing in a private conversation 30 years ago he’d be thrown off the bench. Ask former Senator George Allen, Jr. (R-VA) what happens when a conservative is alleged to have said something racially insensitive 30 years ago. 

Republicans need to treat President Obama and his administration, particularly his nominees, with all the respect and deference that he and his Democrat cronies paid to President Bush. You can’t lay down and play nice and expect the other side to do the same thing. It hasn’t worked yet, and it’s unlikely to in the future. They need to remember that the next President will hopefully have handed President Obama a resounding defeat and, as a result, the venom hurled at him will make the vitriol aimed at President Bush look like high praise. So, rather than pretending that the Democrats will play nice with the next Republican president, they need to do everything they can to make it troublesome for the current Democrat President.

And to start, they need to demolish Judge Sotomayor on her blatantly racist attitude and the Democrats for supporting her given their normal attitude toward racism. We neither need nor want a racist justice on the highest court in the land. And what we’re likely to get is a justice who holds the belief that race, class, and sex mean more to a judge’s ability than education, experience, and understanding of the law. 

Oddly, according to the Associated Press, the New Hampshire state legislature yesterday voted down a bill that was intended to authorize same-sex “marriage” in that state. I say it’s odd, because the bill was expected to pass with about as much resistance as that offered by wet ice. What’s even stranger is that it was defeated by proponents of same-sex “marriage” siding with conservatives. At least that’s strange until you find out why.

Apparently Governor John Lynch (D), understanding the magnitude of the situation, wanted to insert language allowing religious institutions to actually practice their faith and refuse to perform gay marriages and counsel gay couples. The conservatives, of course, voted down the law on the principle that a man cannot logically marry a man. The gay privileges activists believe that the bill doesn’t given them enough privileges, since they can’t use the law to force a Catholic Church to “marry” two men or give them “marital” counseling.

“But all they want is equal rights,” right? Bull. Same-sex “marriage” proponents have spent tons of time and effort trying to make us believe the lie that they simply want the same rights as everyone else, that they only want to be left alone, and that they don’t intend to infringe on other people’s rights. Well, the lie was revealed in Concord yesterday for all the world to see. 

In case I haven’t been explicit enough on this topic, here’s what gay privileges activists want given their record in speeches, protests, and legislative actions. They want to redefine “marriage” to mean any two (possibly “or more”) people who wish to share an abode and legitimize their sexual relationship. They want to be able to serve in the military as gays first, soldiers second. They want all references to the wickedness, wrongness, perversity, or depravity of homosexuality to be expunged from society. They want to be able to force churches to recognize and accept homosexual behavior as moral, healthy, and normal. They want a crime against a gay person to be prosecuted more strongly and punished more severely than for the same crime against a straight person. They want their behavioral tendencies to be considered inherent traits that cannot be used for discrimination. They want all those who disagree with homosexuality to be silenced in the interests of Tolerance and Diversity.

This isn’t some slippery-slope argument taking from the aether the idea that if we allow same-sex “marriage” society will inevitably fall. This is based on the pattern of behavior that has been repeated for every leftist cause since slavery. An inch is given (gays are allowed to live their lifestyle) and a mile is demanded (gays demand same-sex relationships be called “marriage”). Now that the mile is being given, they want the league (suppression of the rights of people and institutions that don’t buy into the “it’s OK to be gay” mantra.) What happens then? What will they demand after we get hate-crime laws in place and force churches to change their teachings on homosexuality?  I’d say it’s a pretty far leap to say they’ll start outlawing normal sexual relationships, heterosexual sex is needed for the species to survive. Then again, in vitro fertilization is technologically possible, thus it is possible for a woman to have offspring without actually engaging in the procreative act. Besides, who would have thought someone would decide that a man can marry a man?

One of my pet peeves with the Left during the Bush-the-Younger administration was the incessant call for his and Vice President Cheney’s impeachment. I suppose that part of it was to exact revenge for the impeachment of their previous Lord and Savior, Bill Clinton, and part of it, at least late in the game, was to rid Washington of both individuals and replace them with a potential President Pelosi – which would have been just a brilliant move, mind. (Could you imagine a world where Nancy Pelosi has actual authority? I’m sure I don’t want to.) My problem with the calls for impeachment is that they were rarely attached to any accusations of any actual crimes. They wanted Cheney out because he was once associated with the Halliburton Oil Company that was making money in Iraq. The best they could come up with for President Bush was “violating our civil rights” ostensibly for the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that allowed federal wiretapping of out-going international calls to the Middle East. The problem is that no crimes were committed – unlike Bill Clinton, who had, in fact, committed perjury in a civil trial, while President.

Well, I’m here to tell you that I have the same opinion of the “Impeach Obama” bumper stickers I’m starting to see. We don’t live in a parliamentary democracy; we live in a Federal Republic. We can’t just use Congress to impose a vote of “No Confidence” in the President to remove him from office. If the President, whether his name is George W. Bush or Barack Obama, commits a crime, he should be impeached and removed from office. We don’t have a system that calls for the removal of the President when he loses favor in Congress. On the contrary, our system separates the President from Congress so that we don’t change leadership every time Congress wants to throw a temper tantrum. And, you Liberals who think it would have been fine, keep in mind that it would have resulted in Bill Clinton having been “No Confidenced” in 1994. If you don’t like the President, you shouldn’t have voted for him, and you should vote for the other guy when he comes up for re-election, and vote for the opposition party in Congress next time.

As evidence of the bias of the media, I submit that when gas prices were going up, and up, and up during the Bush administration, the media focused on the doom and gloom. “Pain at the Pump” reports were played daily on local DC area news radio stations.  Every year, during times of high demand, and, thus higher prices, we’d hear about how gas was going to hit $5.00 a gallon by year’s end – which it inevitably would not. We heard that oil companies were gouging prices and that the President had to “do something” about it. Then-Senator Obama said he’d institute a windfall-profits tax if elected.

Then, when prices fell precipitously late last year before President Obama could take office – and credit, I remember a conversation on the news going like this, “Q: Isn’t it good that oil prices are going down? A: No, it’s a sign that the economy is in really bad shape.” So Bush couldn’t win. Prices going up is bad, and prices going down is bad. 

So, now that oil is, again, starting to rise and gas is climbing over $2.15 a gallon in my neighborhood (up from around $1.80 only about 2 ½ weeks ago), rising oil prices are “a sign of a good economy.” So under Bush rising energy prices are bad, but under Obama the same rising energy prices are good? It’ll be fun to see what the media says about oil prices if they crack the $3 and $4 barriers in the next couple of years.

There’s an internet legend running around that I can only hope is true, but probably isn’t. It goes something like this:

T. B. Bechtel, a City Councilor from Newcastle, Australia, was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about allegations of torture of suspected terrorists? His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT:

If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's [family jewels] to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel[lover] will save just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say: Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his [boys] are wet.

Unfortunately, in researching this claim, I discovered that Mr. Bechtel is apparently a Councilman in at least Newcastle, New South Wales, London, Ontario, and Midland, TX, simultaneously, so I suspect this is a made up story. Funny thing is, I suspect it was made up by some Liberal to cast dispersions on conservatives (noting the applause of his audience, and the association with Midland in some of the versions. Do London, ON, and Newcastle, NSW, have similar reputations for conservatism?), but there were a number of hits on Google that seemed to indicate a general agreement with the alleged Bechtel’s statements.

By the way, I only hope it’s true because I’d like just once to see a politician in the West have the [boys] to be blunt about what to do with terrorists.