Sully: Yeah, A-jad's a mean guy, but you know that Karl Rove and Sarah Palin...

...they're just as eeevil...

Andrew Sullivan, whom some liberals confuse for being conservative, has recently expressed his opinion about the goings on in Iran. He has earned much praise for siding with freedom against the corrupt Iranian mullahocracy, and then, like Vice President Biden, he reminds you once again the wise remarks he makes are when he's OFF his meds. Just like the comparison of Ahmadinejad to former President Bush, Sullivan's comparison of A-jad to Karl Rove and Sarah Palin is a bit over the top and inflammatory.

First off, I, like John Hawkins, am astounded at the fact that the Obama Administration is siding with the tyrannical regime, rather than come out on the side of freedom, by supporting the protesters. The United States has always fought for not only its freedom, but for the freedom of others. Even if Obama wanted to be cautious, he could have called on the mullahs to perform a careful investigation of the matter. Instead, he wants the mullahs to get all their exciting bloodsport out of the way, so they can talk. That's not leadership, that's being a coward, he should take a lesson from other world leaders who have spoken more forcefully, like his former gal pal, Angela Merkel. I think this is the first president who has sided with oppression over freedom...

GayPatriotWest writes about the hypocrisy that has emerged on the Gay Left. In Iran, there is rampant discrimination towards gays...even to the point they are killed for being gay. Nothing has emerged on any "gay rights" websites condemning the anti-gay regime in Iran. But these are the same people who can't make a cohesive argument supporting their causes without demonizing the opposition.

I thought we inaugurated our 44th President on January 20th...not someone without a spine...

Have a great day...

Hey, you know who's weak on national security?

...silly, you already know...

If you have never caught Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld on FNC, you're missing a real treat. Whenever I have the opportunity, I always catch Gutfeld and his roundtable of political commentators. He presents the political news of the day with such humor, it makes me jealous. On Panetta's comment about former Vice President Dick Cheney wanting another attack on US soil, Gutfeld wrote on his blog, The Daily Gut:

"But after that, Panetta make a fundamental error in his reasoning. See, he mistakes Cheney for a leftwinger. Remember, it was during the Bush Administration that the left milked the hell out of tragedy and calamity to make sure they won in November. Liberal bloggers never met a car bomb they didn't front page, and lefty pontificators would wet themselves whenever an opportunity to portray our soldiers as seething barbarians presented itself. Hell, you remember the mini-industry of films made about how awful the Iraq war was. They failed miserably at the box office, but helped achieve a loftier goal: they pulled crisis out of success, cementing a win in November.

I used to call these folks patriotic terrorists – people who claim they love their country, but need that same country to suffer, so they can win."

Some see this as the deflection it is, from the White House's weak statement on Iran. I guess I can't fault the POTUS for being a coward in this, after all, he's promised to sit down with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. He wouldn't want to offend them with such petty-assed things like stressing free and fair elections (by the way, speaking of "free and fair elections," has anyone heard from Jimmah Carter lately?), the hallmark of a democratic society. To me, it's strange how Democrats hemmed and hawwed up until September 10th, 2001 about President Bush being "selected, not elected," but are silent in the face of actual instances of voter and election fraud. As US Senator Joe Lieberman said, we should stand "loudly and clearly" with the people of Iran. And building on what I said about Mossadeq yesterday, the people of Iran admire the United States, it's the government that has a problem.

On a side note, Allahpundit notes that President Hopey McChangerson was "shocked and outraged" at the murder of George Tiller, but "troubled" about the crackdown in Iran...shows where his priorities are, does it not?

People are being killed in Iran over the election results, and as Ace notes, A-jad was not as popular with the Iranian electorate as the Washington Post asserts. The populace clearly supported Mousavi, and their votes should be respected. It's "troubling" that people like Obamessiah believe that their opinions are the majority, and any outcome that doesn't show that is rigged. They protested in the streets and demanded recounts and claimed that Bushie stole the election, etc. They should be just as vocal as the Iranian protesters and conservatives on this issue, but I guess liberals and the mullahs are on the same page. It's the same "tough" stance he took during the Russia/Georgia conflict last year, calling on both sides to use "restraint," even though in this case, the mullahs are committing the horrendous acts against the protestors (what can a picket sign do against the Iranian military? Piss them off?)

Oh wait! I was sorely mistaken. Liberals have expressed their opinions about the travesty in Iran. You think they are condemning the mullahs for indiscrimiately beating and killing protesters...hell nah! They've compared A-jad to...wait for it...George W. Bush. Liberals are also believing the Cairo speech was the inspiration for the protests in Iran and the emergence of democracy in Lebanon. Funny, how no credit is given to President Bush, by invading both Iraq and Afghanistan paved the way for democratic reforms in the Middle East...

It's like Obama's sent an I-pod with his favorite songs to the mullahs, hoping all will be better...

Have a great day...

You know, Ed Shultz is a little like Obama...

...but instead of wanting to urinate on his political foes, Obama wants to urinate on our traditions...

Leon Panetta is making the waves again, upset that former Vice President Cheney is salivating at the thought of another terrorist attack on the United States. To Panetta, this would vindicate Cheney's beliefs that Obama is urinating on the tactics the Bushites used during the War on Terror (September 2001-January 2009). I know that liberals find it hard to believe that some politicians are not cynical, especially after defending President Clinton's eight years of narcissism, but I will always believe in my heart that during the days after the horrendous attacks, the Bushites and caring Democrats wanted to do all they could to prevent another one of that magnitude. But hey, James Carville and Paul Begala expressed a desire to force a Republican president to fail, and needed to remind Democrats that the Selected-in-Chief was not a Democrat.

Obama's intelligence officials have warned him against releasing the "torture memos," noting it would continue to flame anti-US sentiments. He has denied Cheney's request to release all the memos, probably because those would vindicate Cheney and make Obama eat crow. He has ordered the FBI to give Miranda warnings to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan, he has sugar coated Islamic terrorism, favors diplomacy with Iran and the Palestinians over Israel, as evidenced by his equating the Holocaust to Palestinian relocation. None of this seems to bother Obama's acolytes, obviously, since Jeremiah Wright has a problems with "dem Jooos."

I was reading the latest issue of Newsweak, and a letter written by Howard S., from Scotts Valley, California made clear to those Amuricans ( he called them "history-challenged") why the Iranians dislike our fellow Amuricans...the CIA-backed overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq (or Mossadegh), who was "democratically elected," by the Iranian Parliament after the assassination of the sitting prime minister. Unfortunately for Howard, and all those who believe him, Mossadeq was highly unpopular with the Iranians after his attempts to nationalize the oil wells, among other things, led to an economic slump. Obama slammed the CIA for removing Mossadeq, even though his removal was what the country needed (DISCLAIMER: No Janie, and other liberal spies, I am not suggesting the CIA remove Obama, even though that maybe what our country needs).

John Hawkins says that Obama's decision to put Panetta in the top slot at the CIA shows us how serious he is about terrorism. He muses the CIA has a new Public Enemy #1: Dick Cheney. It's true that Obama's moves since becoming the 44th president shows he's a big ol' softie on national security, but I knew that when he was still a US Senator...

Have a great day...

Playing the race card can get you burned sometimes...

"I hope she can find a wise Latina doctor to set that ankle, as opposed to an average white doctor, because the wise Latina doctor has much richer experience with broken ankles."--Rush Limbaugh

While liberals focus on the boogeyman "right-wing extremist," in their campaign to cover up for Obama's countless missteps, the race war that he's perpetuating is becoming a little too hot to handle for him. Very few noticed that his association with a black separatist would become a central theme for his presidency. All of his defenders dismiss criticism of Obama's policies as racist, conservatives and Republicans can't stomach having a black president, which is kinda funny when you consider how they supported having two black US Secretaries of State, a minority US Attorney General, and a black US Supreme Court Justice. It has been Democrats and liberals who have been on the wrong side of the race wars, since they believe that just because a white man has held a position for so long, it's time a black guy held it...no matter how unqualified he is.

This crap started shortly after Obama resigned his US Senate seat. Roland Burris believed that the seat should have gone to a black man...namely, him. He played the race card against Harry Reid, who, in a surprise move showing he had a backbone, refused to seat him. After US Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) played Softball with Chris Matthews, Reid folded like a house of cards. Now that evidence is emerging that Burris was in on Blagojevich's selling of the US Senate seat to the highest bidder, Democrats are unbelievably angry, even moreso that the nominees to various positions appointed by Obama feel they're entitled because of their race.

Sotomayor's confirmation hearings will be the first in recent memory that will not focus solely on Roe v. Wade, but on affirmative action. Her responses to questions posed by senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and will be used as fodder if she fucks it up. We all know how Democrats and liberals will stand on this issue, that Republican opposition to Sotomayor is racist, not only against Hispanics, but against the nation's first black president. Since we have minorities in several senior positions in our government, and have for a while now, the idea of continuing a program, like affirmative action, is merely a waste of time.

Minorities have access to a litany of programs and services they didn't in prior years. The nation has come a long way in ensuring equal protections for all its citizens based on race. This is not the United States in the Jim Crow Era, but one that has more than made up for its original sin...slavery. Obviously, based on her ruling in the Ricci case, Sotomayor still believes the race war needs to continue.

Have a great day...

Every six months, conservatives feel like Ann Coulter...

...we get blamed for something we didn't do...

Some of us already know what a hack Paul Krugman is, but for those that still have yet to experience it, Mr. Krugman, along with the rest of the Left, has blamed not only the Tiller shooting on conservatives, but the shooting at the Holocaust Museum as well. No tragedy should be used to score political points, but that doesn't stop Krugman and his ilk from finding ways to do it. He points to the recent and "prescient" Department of Homeland Security report that highlighted "right-wing" extremism. Lest you believe him alone in peddling these notions, I will have you note, he is not alone in his thinking. Contrary to liberals' protestations about conservatives having issues about the DHS' broadbrush report, this report made generalizations about conservatives and did not note specific threats.

Von Brunn and his organization had been on the radar since the 1980s and DHS did nothing to stop him. I believe there is a stark difference between neo-Nazis and conservatives, the Right tends not to listen to the nutty remarks made by these groups. Besides, it hasn't been any known righties to besmirch the the "Jooos." (I wonder when Krugman will start leveling criticism at this guy)Then again, why are groups who align with left-leaning politics associated with conservative thought. Last I checked, national socialism was a leftie belief, it is their desire for the populace to serve the state. It has been noted that von Brunn despised former President Bush, because he believed he was in on the 9/11 attacks, denied President Obama is a citizen, and was anti-Semitic. And in case one of my lib friends dares to use this as an example of conservatives hating Obama, then they can explain why he attacked the Federal Reserve during Reagan's first term...

I had stayed away from talking about the murder of Dr. Tiller, because it would be a repeat of what I said about the murder of a cop in Pittsburg and Chad Castanaga, that conservatives would be blamed for kooks murdering people. To liberals, it's never the fault of the perpetrator...it's always the system. Even Dr. King's niece felt the comparison of the death of her uncle to the murder of Tiller was a bit over the top. For all the hate directed at Bill Orally for putting a spotlight on Tiller, I notice none of Tiller's defenders paid attention to the methods he used to cover his ass. As I said, as heinous as this man was, he did not deserve to be a victim of a vigilante, and Tiller's murderer should be subject to the death penalty for his crime.

While lefties try to pin the blame for acts of terror on "hate speech" coming from "reich-wing" media outlets and talk radio, let us point out, that many on the left also engage in conspiracy theories, not only about former President Bush, but on Iraq, the Global War on Terror, and why we were bombed in the first place. One name that comes to mind is Keith Olbermann, who recently criticized Rush Limbaugh for essentially saying the same thing he did about former President Bush. Limbaugh's comment, in effect, was that Al Qaeda needed to hurry and destroy Amurica before Obama does. Olbermann must have Alzheimer's since he said of President Bush, in one of his Speshul Komints, that he [Bush] was doing the terrorist's work, that Bush was like Hitler, and that Cheney was just as "insane as the terrorists." The Obamedia didn't mention Keith Olbermann, Medea Benjamin, Arianna Huffington nor Markos Moulitsas, when a Muslim gunned down Private William Long a few weeks back.

To liberals, this brings credence to the shotty DHS report focusing on an "uptick in right-wing extremism." In fact, our dear friend, Paul Krugman is now claiming that the VRWC's media wing is planning another attack in the same vein as the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. I think President Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for that one...

Have a great day...

"Gee, if they move any more to the Right, we'll be in a theocracy..."

...it's amazing how this belief isn't extended to Islamic fundamentalism...

I got a predictable response about my comment on a blog which advocated a more moderate GOP. The response was that if the Republicans became any more conservative, that they would advocate a theocracy. Nothing scares liberals more than invoking the name of Jesus, except when Obamessiah mentions it. Perhaps they already know he doesn't mean it, since he's embracing their favorite religion, Islam. When President Bush invoked the name of The Almighty, you could see liberals from Manhattan to WeHo, tremble in their boots. I believe that Bushie was simply a man of faith, that wanted the Lord to ensure he was doing His will. To liberals, the man was only trying to establish a theocracy, despite his many efforts to ensure freedoms for not only Christians, but for everyone worldwide.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that conservatives corner the market on tolerance, but as I continue to preach, our policies actually promote individuality, instead of focusing on people as groups. After peddling her notion that conservatives are intolerant, Janie decided to take on another threat to mankind everywhere...our growing federal deficit? No, it's still Bushitler's fault...the fact that our allies are becoming our enemies? No, they just don't understand the Obamessiah, or they're just racists...Obama's pass on protecting voters? No, the federal cases against ACORN and the dismissal of the case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation is nothing more than a reich-wing fearmongering tactic...the threat she decided to take on was...The Constitution Party. From the website, the party desires to return the federal government to its Constitutional limits (who could oppose that? Apparently, she doesn't...) and restore our laws to its Biblical foundations (...ah, that's what got Janie to blow a gasket). For her, and other liberals, the issue is settled...we have a separation of church and state...and the Founders realized the danger of mixing politics and religion. I beg to differ...

The Founding Fathers, deists though they were, always recognized their religion and formed the government with the backbone of morality. The Founders realized that the faithful could not check their faith at the Capitol steps or the voters booth. Contrary to liberal talking points, the "religious freedom" the Founders advocated were against government forming a state religion and then forcing the electorate to adhere to it, like King Henry VIII and his Act of Supremacy in 1534. There is nothing that I found about the Constitution Party to be objectionable. In fact, many of its platforms are core principles of conservative thought. Many of those who considered themselves "deists" considered themselves Christians, but in the sense of Christianity before it was corrupted by the Council of Trent.

The Constitution Party ensures that it does not desire to transform Amurica into a Christian version of Taliban Afghanistan, though people like Janie overlook that important fact to demonize. It desires to return the nation to the intention of the Founders, with some added features not addressed in the Constitution. It would be hard to argue it wrong to return our nation back to its Constitutional principles, especially in light of the many diatribes by liberals like Janie, who slammed Republicans for allegedly trashing it. Christians are not like Islamists who desire to force their religion upon the masses. Perhaps those who are so anti-Christian have their religions mixed up...

Christians know that not all are going to be Christian, they have accepted that as fact. I believe it's the same thing with liberals...they're problems are only with themselves. They have a problem with the feelings they project onto others...As for me, I tend not to align with any one political party. I choose the candidate based on their positions, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or Independent. I also believe that I am not alone in my thinking.

Have a great day...

Falling for the same rhetoric over and over again...

...doesn't dissuade the usual crowd from their talking points...

The good doctah doesn't really like blog wars and generally tries to keep discussions above board and humorous. Occasionally, there is one person who destroys all that and resorts to attacking me. I'm not whining, because I've been doing this for years, but I find it ironic that these are the same people that demand conservatives moderate their stances. Usually those types of blogs utilize President Obama's strawman argument to marginalize dissent, portraying any dissent as loopy and and on the fringe.

There is a blog on MySpace that talks about "Right Wing Whackiness At Its Worst", where the blogger uses the stereotypes about conservatives and Republicans to make her point that every one who criticizes her Obamessiah, is a nut...I thought she was sarcastic, until she admitted she wasn't. One of the things I was trying to figure out while reading this was exactly how the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, the KKK, all of a sudden became associated with the Republican Party. The idea was that in order for the GOP to win elections, they must become liberal. I'm not sure they were aware of the last election we had, but the moderate Republican did not win. h/t: Ryan

I pointed out on this blog that the GOP continues to lose because they have abandoned their conservative base, to which a regular commenter of the blog called me a "wingnut." I took it all in stride, as I do when other people call me names. I believe there's a larger point to be made here, and it goes above the ignorant masses who peddle the nonsense that the GOP needs to moderate. Don't fall for the wiles of liberals, who pretend to have the best interests of the opposing party in mind. Smart liberals know that if they move the GOP to the left, they'll secure future elections of Democrats, since most voters vote for the full monty, instead of the lite version.

Of course there is room in the Republican Party for moderates, but those who are moderate should be more willing to say WHY they lean conservative, instead of seeking ways to alienate them. I have my reasons for being conservative and there are times when I disagree with many of the platforms of the Right. Funny, I don't recall receiving a letter forcing me out of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. I believe that falls on liberals and Democrats, who force people out that don't adhere to their tenets...remember Joe Lieberman? Moderates in the GOP have as much a voice as Hardliners and those in between.

I continue to believe that this is a defense mechanism used by liberals to cover up the fact that they are embarrassed by Obamessiah. They can't afford to give up on him just yet, as it is his first year. Things are getting difficult for their Obamessiah, though. His Por-kill-us package has not had the intended effect on our economic recovery. He's losing the edge on spending and I believe if much is made about his Department of Justice taking a pass on protecting voters, among other failings, people like Janie and Dale Husband will soon wake up.

Have a great day...

I hope he has a strong antibiotic...

...instead of two pills and a glass of water...

Although I know better, I would expect President Obama to visit the Middle East, and not be so determined to apologize for former President Bush's desire to spread democracy across the Middle East, and call on Muslims to renounce the acts committed in their name...and their willingness to wish "death to America" every six months. As a former Muslim (which, during the campaign, was grounds to be dismissed as a hate-filled lying liar), the president is in a good spot to call on Muslims to undergo a "reformation," similar to Christianity, where debate on the central tenets would be encouraged. The president experienced Islam on three different continents, so that would make him more of an authority on Islam than say...your humble correspondent.

Though he's being seen as a cure for the ills of his predecessor, many Muslims are skeptical that he will effectively convince them that he's the anti-Bush, as was evidenced in his speech to Cairo University. Muslims are extremely uncomfortable with the US partnering with Israel, and with anyone criticizing Arabs. He does get praise from the Arab community by expressing the positivity of Islam, though. According to many critics, his speech expressed a similar sentiment used when Obama described the Russia/Georgia conflict, that we should all express restraint. When he did talk tough, it came across, to AllahPundit, like addressing a room full of flat-earthers demanding they believe the earth is round.

Charles Krauthammer notes that the Obama Administration is reneging on several proposals that have been used by both Bushes and Clinton, which calls for a two-state solution to solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict. He says that the United States will no longer dictate solutions, but listen to other nations, since he believes that the US has always started the "peace process" by dictating. In yet another episode of sticking it to "whitey," Obamessiah demands Israel accept his plans, or be subject to being demonized as not wanting peace. Oddly, or should I say, as predicted, no concessions were expected of the Arabs, with the small exception that they shouldn't go around killing innocent men, women, and children.

It shouold be noted that governments that are forced upon people often rely on keeping the people in check. Everyday a dictator is threatened by an uprising by his subjects who have grown weary of oppression. To keep his power in check, the dictator forms a scapegoat to divert attention from his shortcomings. In the case of the Palestinians, and other similar governments, these scapegoats are the United States and Israel. Also noted in Krauthammer's piece was how in the years since Israel turned over its lands to the Palestinians, no infrastructure has been built on these lands by the Palestinian government...of course they blame Israel.

Israel was not the only group thrown under the bus. Several have noted that the president did not call out Arabs on their treatment of gays or women. So my instincts were correct, that this was just another suck-up to our enemies tour. Meanwhile, our long standing allies are feeling this new "change we can believe in." Both French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel have recently joined the club formed by Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Gordon Brown...Obama's Snub Club.

I would like to end this entry with this personal observation. Many Obama fans often chastise me for criticizing Obama's plans claiming he's just one man and hasn't had time to get his act together. Apparently, they don't realize that this supposedly powerless man is destroying any and everything that we hold dear in the United States. In six short months, our relations with our allies have been strained like never before, and our enemies are seeing us as pansies...but don't blame me, I voted for the other gal.

Have a great day...

Obamessiah: Hard on rhetoric...2

...soft on standing tough on Amurican principles...

If a political novice allies himself with a known terrorist, a devout Marxist, and black separatists, why would people expect that this same political novice, who is the new president, change his spots? Growing up in a church that preaches black separatism and that "whitey" is the root of all evil, one would expect some hostility directed at "whitey" if this political novice tasted a little power. It seems, as I have been saying for awhile now, that Obama's chief goal is to stick it to "whitey" to pay for their ancestors' past sins. It doesn't matter that those who advocated "separate, but equal" policies are in the minority, and we, as a nation, are accepting many different things as years pass...the goal is to continue to foment the divide that has existed since our nation's inception, and it will continue as long as the Misery Merchants allow it.

I had forgotten why I listen to Rush Limbaugh, but on my way to fellowship with my parents and family yesterday, I decided to tune in. Of course you know, the president is on Apology Tour II, Muslim World Edition. Before leaving, he gave an interview for the BBC, which apologized for an "imposition" of our values on other nations. Limbaugh is right when he says "freedom is not an imposition." The foundation of our nation is Judeo-Christian morals, and we did not impose them on Afghanistan, Iraq, nor any other nation we defeated in wars and other conflicts. When we defeated Saddam, we removed the shackles he placed on his people, by offering the citizens of Iraq the freedom to choose their own government. The same goes for Afghanistan. The forms of government that are imposed on people are totalitarianism, communism, fascism...not democracy. I guess since the face of democracy almost always happens to be white, I guess Obama has to fight against that too.

Limbaugh went on to say that Obama...I mean, the walking strawman, who believes that the US should not "impose" its values on other nations and cultures, doesn't think twice about having other nations impose their values on the US. Pressure from international groups demanded the closure of GITMO, that we surrender Iraq and vacate post haste, and give terrorists rights and privileges for which they didn't qualify. We have to reason with Mahmoud, Hugo, and Bashir because that eevil, mean, white man called Bush imposed some eevil thing called democracy and he always expressed some strange feeling called "Amurica First" rhetoric. Any and everything about the US is bad, since most people associate the US with "whitey." Barry-O feels it's best to run around and destroy "whitey" whereever his head appears.

Continuing on the theme of his lack of clarity on race issues, the Obama Justice Department has recently deemed the Georgia Voter ID law unacceptable. The Justice Department claims that the plan has a "discriminatory effect" on minorities, even though the plan does allow those who cannot afford a driver's license, or a similar form of ID, to get one from the Secretary of State's office free of charge. The rejection stems from a provision in the Voting Rights Act which says that those states under judicial oversight must obtain preclearance before changing the voting rules. There is a case that was argued before the Supremes back in April, that could possibly render the preclearance moot. It should be noted that the Supremes upheld Indiana's Voter ID law, even after liberals claimed it disenfranchised a woman...without noting she was on the voting rolls in two different precincts.

I wish someone would tell the president and his administration that this is not the 1960s, where racism was widespread. This is 2009, and if he still believes there's racism as rampant now as it was then, can someone tell me why HE's the president and not John McCain?

Have a great day...

It's too early to separate...

...but each passing day makes the job easier...

Liberals are now starting to believe conservatives about Obamessiah, but it's too soon for them to start being more vocal about his ineffectiveness. These people have a hard time acknowledging that those eeevil conservatives were right all along. What I would like to focus on is the continued mantra we hear from liberals that the Right is racist. Watching an episode of my favorite sitcom, All in the Family, when Mike is passed over for a promotion at a university in Minnesota for a black man, the dean's consolation to Mike made plain why liberals feel that minority racism is justified. He said that for too long the scales had been unbalanced in favor of whites, so no matter the qualifications, it's ok if a potentially less qualified minority advances over a more qualified white man. Now, that sentiment reflected what I felt in my teens and early twenties, but how much longer can liberals get away with this type of behavior?

It should be common knowledge that if the goals some liberals claim they're hoping to achieve for minorities were reached, many of them would be jobless. By no means am I claiming that conservatives corner the market on racial harmony, but in my view, it is best that people only judge others based on merits alone and nothing else. Pro-Sotomayor types show their insecurities about her qualifications by claiming that opposition is racism, but this is the same tricks they used when the Right criticized Obamessiah, something that former Obama-aid drinkers are slowly realizing. It's nice when Democrats are reminded of their racist past and are forced on the defensive.

We know how Democrats were at the forefront in opposition to Miguel Estrada because they did not want President Bush to have the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court. Mona Charen believes it's more than that. She believes that Democrats should have to face the consequences when one of their own makes baseless charges. Conservative sage, Thomas Sowell, reiterates what I've been saying throughout my time as a political blogger, that invoking people's feelings in judicial rulings is dangerous, and he bolsters it by saying, in summary, that all citizens are expected to know the law, in advance, and follow it, one cannot know the life experiences of judges if they have the misfortune of appearing in front of one for violating it. He also says that like the Great Immigration Debates of 2006 and 2007, the chattering class can stop this seemingly unstoppable train as well.

Ace, has a post about his feelings for minority conservatives. He says that their skin color should not be a bar to criticism. He applauds Janice Rogers Brown, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Alberto Gonzales' rise up the political ladder, but at the same time, wants people to be careful about criticizing the "wise Latina." Obama's new-fangled opinion was expressed by none other than Montel Williams (he should have stuck with commercials for prescription drug coverage...), who claims that Obama is under some new type of procedure, where Congress has to clear his picks (no doubt this new procedure has a tinge of racism...). He claims that no other president has been under this type of scrutiny and that any opponents to Sotomayor wants the court to return to the days when Democrats appointed all those racist Supreme Court Justices of segregation. Before you laugh, there are plenty of people out there who are ignorant of the US Constitution, and believe exactly what Williams says. That falls into a whole 'nother subject...like high schools not teaching Amurican History the way it happened.

Seeing their excuses folding like a house of cards, the pro-Sotomayor crowd is taking to task those who bemoaned Sotomayor's "empathy," but championed Justice Alito's...

Have a great day...I'll be eating fish!