Newt Gingrich: Crush Replace the Left, Impeach Judges, Victory or Death Video

This is the Newt from "once upon a time" when he was my American hero. After he began selling books, I noticed he went a bit wonky with a new book is on the horizon, and moves uncomfortably to the center, but this is as simple as 2 + 2. God bless Newt Gingrich.

Having said that, the video below is not new. This speech was given on November 21, 2009 at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend, at Palm Beach, FL.

Newt Gingrich Crush the Left, Impeach Judges, Victory or Death
See the entire 5-part series at at KitmanTV.
H/T to David Lemon

Robert Chatigny Obama Judge Nominee and Serial Killer Michael Ross

You've probably heard about this, but maybe you have not heard it quite like this. Listen to Senators interviewing this lump-of-crap judicial nominee and hear Michael Ross, the Roadside Strangler, who says he has murdered eight women. See the video below.

Robert Chatigny

Robert Chatigny, Obama's choice to sit on U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, say he is "sorry" a couple of times. How can a judge face the families...or his own family? Read more at NewsBusters.



Appeals Court Nominee Robert Chatigny in Senate Hearing re: Roadside Strangler (video)

Obama Nominee Judge Robert N. Chatigny: Chatigny Soft Spot for Rapists and Murderers?

Judge Robert N. Chatigny is an Obama nominee for the Court of Appeals. How many times must we ask if there is any vetting going on in this White House? The Senate Judiciary has postponed the hearing for Chatigny after receiving information that the Judge had a difficult time letting a serial killer appear for execution - after 18 years on death row.

Judge Robert N. Chatigny

Who wants to do away with sex offender registries? Perhaps Judge Robert Chatigny does.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny gained notoriety in 2005 for his role in trying to fight the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross, also known as The Roadside Strangler, whom Chatigny had described as a victim of his own "sexual sadism."

His conduct in that case, which included threatening to go after Ross' attorney's law license, as well as his ruling in 2001 against sex offender registries created under Megan's Law, has caused a commotion among Republicans on the judiciary panel...

Behind the scenes, Republicans are taking a hard look at Chatigny's role in the Ross proceedings which they say could be disqualifying -- particularly on the Court of Appeals, the last line of review before the Supreme Court.

"You're letting him be the final review for a lot of people, and he's shown this alarming bias in sex crime cases," a GOP committee aide said. 

"I've never seen conduct like this," said a Republican source. "I'm shocked that the White House vetted this guy ... and still put him up for a judgeship."

The nomination is relatively fresh. President Obama submitted his name Feb. 24 for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, calling him a "first-rate" legal expert and "faithful" public servant.

Chatigny is currently a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. He was a Clinton nominee in 1994. Michael Ross was sentenced to death for murdering eight girls and women betten the ages of 14 and 25. He raped them all but one, before murdering them. He lived on Death Row in Connecticut for 18 years. 

Dianne Feinstein Hand Notes 1990 - Another Cheating Moment for Feinstein

Liberals reported Sarah Palin's "hand notes" as further proof of Palin's lack of intelligence - can't make a speech without notes - nevermind that the President cannot utter a word without his TOTUS (Teleprompter of the U.S). What would Liberals do without Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, neither of whom lack for anything, as they well know.

Palin wrote three topics on the palm of her hand when addressing the National Tea Party in Nashville. Palin has a lot to say. She never lacks for words. It is easy to get wound-up, go long on one topic and end up short on another. So, she wrote a reminder on her palm.

And so did, now Senator, Dianne Feinstein, but Feinstein was in a debate; notes, including palm notes were forbidden - but she did it anyway. Watch the video of Feinstein, and notice that former Bush Press Secretary, Dana Perino, said had she done the "palm note" tease from the White House Press Secretary's podium, as did Robert Gibbs, she would have probably been fired.

Dianne Feinstein Uses Palm Notes h/t Hot Air

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Thank you Karen!

Chappaquiddick Joke on Ted Kennedy

ChicagoRay found this video. Ed Klein tells the story of Chappaquiddick being one of Ted Kennedy's favorite jokes. Klein is a former Editor of The New York Times Magazine and currently the foreign editor of Newsweek. He is releasing a new book on Ted Kennedy, and the question is, who isn't? If this is true, the joke is really on Ted Kennedy. He may be lionized today, but surely those hearing the "Chappaquiddick" jokes, had to wonder what kind of a sick joke Ted Kennedy was.

As he has been memorialized today, it is obvious that he was beloved by his family, that he stepped up for all the nieces and nephews who were fatherless, that his own children loved him dearly, and that he knew how to get done what he wanted to get done in the halls of the U.S. Senate.

What I remember about Ted Kennedy is the Kennedy-McCain Amnesty Bill - one of the most devastating Bills to ever hit Capitol Hill. I won't forgive Kennedy or McCain for that one. I won't forget what he did to Judge Robert Bork. It was cruel and contemptible and it all lies. For those who want to see as his pompous tirade about the Judge as merely political rhetoric, your political world is much different than mine. I didn't know much about Robert Bork at the time, as most Americans didn't, but Kennedy's comments were uncalled for and only a black heart could stand in the Senate and rip a good man in this way:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

This was not acceptable for the U.S. Senate, and he should have been excoriated by his peers, but he he was not - it's just politics. And may we all be reminded that Ted Kennedy wanted no part of windmills or oil rigs off his Hyannis Port shoreline, but he didn't mind if they were in your backyard.

I have no way to know whether Ted Kennedy had real remorse for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, but I feel he did. Who would not, but you can read what some of the locals had to say, as well as some astonishing, odd and unusual details of what really happened here. Ted Kennedy's real legacy is proof that we should make it unlawful to be a career Senator or U.S. Representative.





 Chappaquiddick Joke on Ted Kennedy

Patrick Leahy, Sotomayor Misquote: Leahy Misrepresents Sotomayor

Senator Patrick Leahy gave Sonia Sotomayor an opportunity to explain one of her now infamous remarks, and in doing so Leahy chose to misrepresent Sotomayor's own words - leaving out that stuff about her capability in a court of law to reach "a better conclusion than the white male."

Patrick Leahy
 

The exact Sonia Sotomayor quote, in a 2001 speech, and then in another 7 instances is:

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.

But if you were watching the Leahy-Sotomayor exchange, as was I and the Washington Examiner was, you noticed that Leahy specifically left out the racial and ethnic point of her comment. As the Washington Examiner said, "one way to lessen the impact of Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment is to misquote it."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: "You said that, quote, you would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions. ... So tell us, you've heard all of these charges and countercharges, the wise Latina and on and on. Here's your chance. You tell us — you tell us what's going on here, Judge."

Senator Jeff Session (R-AL) set the record straight when it was his turn at the microphone:

I would suggest that the quotation he [Leahy] gave was not exactly right of the wise Latina comment." Sessions then read the correct quote. It was only then that Sotomayor said her remark "fell flat" and "left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge.

Of course, it is exactly what she meant. It was what she intended and it was exactly the impression that she hoped to leave with the audience on those occasions when she spoke the words. Sotomayor explained [paraphrased - but a very close paraphrase] that when she was speaking to women lawyers or young Latino lawyers or students, she intended to inspire them, to show that their life experiences could enrich the legal system, and that they should believe that they could become anything they wanted to become. So the question is, what does a white man's conclusions have to do with inspiring other women? The answer is that she intended to inspire them through encouragement that a Latino woman's conclusions are better than a white man's conclusions.

It is not difficult if you cut through the misrepresentations of Leahy's and Sotomayor's part, and then apply a slight bit of common sense. Jim Kouri at examiner.com has some interesting comments about Leahy, his warnings to the GOP and his legacy as "Leaky Leahy," when it comes to "top secret communications," (in other words - government secrets). It is worth reading, and being reminded who so many of these powerful Democrats are somewhere inside their shallow souls. Are you contacting your Senators?

Whether Republican or Democrat, whether you think you know how they will vote on Sotomayor or not, give them a call today, another tomorrow, send an email, send a fax, give them another call.

Dianne Feinstein on Sotomayor: Sotomayor So Amazing!

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) were the guests on today's Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. The Sotomayor confirmations were the topic of the day. What a complete joke these confirmation hearings are unless, you are a Democrat planning to dismember a nominee, as they did Clarence Thomas. If that's the plan, then the hearings are important.

Both Cornyn and Feinstein sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We can assume that both have had the same access to whatever material Sotomayor finally gave up to the Committee. So, why does one Senator feel that a hearing and some thoughtful examination is important and the other Senator already have her mind made up? Well, as you'll read below, it's because one Senator believes Sotomayor is "amazing." Wallace starts by asking Cornyn if Sotomayor's nomination will be blocked by a Republican filibuster.

CORNYN: Well, of course, it was unheard of to filibuster judges until our friends on the Democratic side filibustered a number of nominees. And unfortunately, a gentleman who might have been the first Hispanic nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Miguel Estrada, who filibustered seven times and denied an up or down vote -- I don't think that will happen to Judge Sotomayor, even though that precedent has now been established. I just don't see it happening in this case.

So knowing all that Cornyn already knows, he does not see a Republican stand against this racist judge.

WALLACE: And do you see any way, just on an up or down vote, to block her nomination?

CORNYN: I think she'll be given a fair hearing. I personally and all of my colleagues have made the commitment to give her a fair hearing, treat her with the dignity we would expect every nominee to be treated. But unfortunately, that seems to be more the exception than the rule. But yes, I think she'll have an up or down vote.

So now it is Feinstein's turn:

WALLACE: Senator Feinstein, is the judge's ascension to the Supreme Court a sure thing?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is. She is an amazing, warm and intelligent woman, and she actually brings to the court more experience in courts -- trial courts, appellate courts -- than any sitting member of the Supreme Court. And what has been amazing to me is how she's overcome adversity and disadvantage and carried on and done it basically by herself.

She's an amazing story, and I think that's been written up now. I think people are beginning to understand her. And you know, she's entered into some 3,000 appeals. She's tried 400 cases. She's written opinions. Obviously, people will find this or that they don't like. But overall, the story is so encouraging -- it is so much a part of the American dream -- and she has done so well at what she's done, it's really -- I take enormous pride as a woman in voting for her. And I never say how I'm going to vote before a hearing, but in this case, I -- John, I find her amazing. I really do.

Senator Feinstein NEVER endorses a candidate before a vote...except this time, because after all, Sotomayor is just so amazing. No need for Feinstein to hear the questions from Republicans, or the answers. Her mind is made up. She's going to vote for her. Cornyn, however, wants to question her "judicial philosophy." I'm sure Cornyn already knows at least what I know, and if he does, he should be able to say "I won't be voting for her, because of her judicial philosophy," but no, he is a Republican and he will play the Democrats game. He obviously respects the confirmation process. Feinstein doesn't need it. When Wallace asks Feinstein what to expect when Sotomayor is asked is asked to explain this comment:

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."

Feinstein said she is looking forward to hearing the "context" in which Sotomayor said the fateful words. Democrat lingo like "not the most artfully put together sentence," popped out along with the wise words of this California Senator who said:

I've been one, who often thinks a woman has to be twice as good to be thought of as equal.

Well, maybe so, but what justifies Sotomayor being twice as good. Sotomayor is a racist and Feinstein knows it. Nevermind.

Related: read the entire transcript at RealClearPolitics.
Sonia Sotomayor Loses to Firefighters: Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor on Felon's Right to Vote
Sonia Sotomayor Death Penalty: "Racist," Violates "Humanist" Thinking Frank Ricci is Sotomayor Target: Frank Ricci the new Joe the Plumber

Campaign Finance Law Under Supreme Court Scrutiny

In a Supreme Court summer session termed "unusual," campaign finance laws will receive the Court's scrutiny.

Supreme Court

In the spotlight is the McCain-Feingold provisions for spending limits by corporations and unions. The question: is it constitutional to limit corporate political spending?

The court is reaching out to decide the foundational question about the rights of corporations in political campaigns," said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School. "It's the last step in several incremental moves the Roberts Court has made to strike down the pillars of campaign-finance law."

Since the court largely upheld McCain-Feingold in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted with the majority in that opinion, has retired and been replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, who has voted to limit certain aspects of McCain-Feingold in prior cases.

The subject that took me the above Wall Street Journal post was: Decisions Indicate Supreme Court Moved Rightward This Term. Being the scholar that I am not, I don't see that conclusion, but whatever....With our government in Democrat hands, and one or more judges perhaps retiring after Justice Breyer, any move to the right is probably temporary. I did find a very interesting piece at the SCOTUS Blog. Written by Tom Goldstein, he talks about the appropriate way in which Justice Roberts is leading the court into measured decisions that will be unimpeachable:

It is reinforcing its own legitimacy with opinions that later can be cited to demonstrate that it is not rapidly or radically changing the law. This approach may be in the starkest relief if next Term the Court cites its recent decision in Wisconsin Right to Life as precedent for concluding that McConnell v. FEC and Austin v. Michigan have been significantly undermined and should be overruled. The plurality and concurrence in Wisconsin Right to Life famously debated how aggressively the Court should go in overruling prior campaign finance precedent. The Chief Justice urged patience – not moving more quickly than required – and the wait may not have been long.

About Justice Roberts:

Overgeneralizing broadly, conservatives believe that doctrines like substantive due process, the exclusionary rule, and a high wall separating church and state aren’t merely wrong but overstep the limited role of judges and endanger the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Turning back those decisions, in turn, is thought to (among other things) enhance respect for the Court. The Chief’s professional life is defined by the Court — as a clerk, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, private practitioner, and now the Chief Justice — and his institutional commitment to it, including ensuring that it is regarded as an institution of integrity rather than a political football (see my earlier post on the Ricci opinion) — is profound. But that perspective – when taken by a thoughtful judge who has the long view – also counsels in favor of moving at a measured pace. If the Court instead were to announce in rapid succession the overruling of its prior decisions permitting regulation of campaign contributions, guaranteeing a right to an abortion, and finding affirmative action consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, then the public would likely be left with the impression that constitutional law is nothing more than a power play between competing ideologies that reflect nothing more than the happenstance of the most recent appointments.

Read the entire article at SCOTUS Blog. From the BLT (The Blog of Legal Times) we learn how a few of the Justices will spend a portion of their summer:

July will also find Justice Samuel Alito Jr. teaching in Innsbruck, Austria at St. Mary's University School of Law's summer program there. Last year, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. taught in the same program and was paid $15,000, according to his recently released financial disclosure form. Speaking of Roberts, he is scheduled to teach a course in July on the history of the Supreme Court at the New England School of Law program in Galway, Ireland.

Around the same time, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is scheduled to teach in Rome, hosted by Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, for his part, will return to Salzburg, Austria for his 20th straight year, teaching in McGeorge School of Law's summer program. Last year, McGeorge paid him $21,700. In August, Kennedy is also due to speak at the Chautauqua Institution's famed summer program in New York.

So for now, we have an "unusual" Supreme Court summer session called for September 9th to look into McCain-Feingold Campagin Finance Law. Much needed scrutiny, in my opinion.

Sotomayor Hearing July 13: Sessions Argues for More Time

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings on her appointment to the Supreme Court are scheduled to begin July 13th, much sooner than Republicans are comfortable with.

Supreme Court of the United States

In the video below, Senator Jeff Sessions lays out how President Bush's nominees, Justices Roberts and Alito were handled - and it wasn't with any haste, even though the Supreme Court seats need to be filled, and even though Justice Roberts had a much shorter paper trail to examine. Paraphrasing Sessions: Sotomayor has a record of more than 4,000 cases, many speeches and law review articles, which need to be analyzed before confirming a judge for a lifetime appointment. Judge Roberts confirmation hearings took 55 days to begin from the day of his nomination. For Justice Alito, 70 days passed. Sotomayor is being ramped-up to 48 days if the date of July 13th holds over Republican objections. Senator Patrick Leahy see no difference in the 55 days for Roberts and the 48 days for Sotomayor, even though there are countless documents to read in the Sotomayor case. Leahy reasons it this way:

There is no reason to unduly delay consideration of this well-qualified nominee,” Leahy said. “Indeed, given the attacks on her character, there are compelling reasons to proceed even ahead of this schedule. She deserves the earliest opportunity to respond to those attacks.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has another viewpoint:

I’m not sure we’ll be ready,” said Coburn, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “If I’m ready to attend, I will attend. If I’m not, I won’t.” Asked if he’d skip the hearing if he felt rushed, Coburn said: “I’m certainly not going to ask questions if I’m not prepared.

By virtue of Sonia Sotomayor's own words, she is under the suspicion of holding racist views (racism about Whites), and that what Leahy refers to as "attacks on her character." Why there would only be a "suspicion" about her racist viewpoint, when it's as clear as daylight, is ridiculous. She has even tried to backpedal, and the White House has attempted to do the same, and say that she would couch her words differently today if she had the opportunity. Then there was the first excuse that she "misspoke." She didn't misspeak and she wouldn't do it diffrently unless she had to, and we know this because she repeated the remark some seven times in her career that we know of.

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

What? Is the white male chopped liver? To Sotomayor, her "female, wise Latina soul" is weightier than a Caucausian "American male soul," and probably the same for an American female soul. This woman should not be on the Supreme Court. By the way, she also believes felons should have the right to vote. Senator Jeff Sessions

Tracked by: Supreme Court Nominee Not So Nimble, Fractures Ankle Excerpt: Read more about this nominee and her upcoming maiden hearing in front of congress at Maggie's Notebook by clicking here.Weblog: Chicago Ray's News Views Tracked: 06.10.09 - 1:18 am

Sonia Sotomayor Death Penalty: "Racist," Violates "Humanist" Thinking

Did Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, fail to disclose to the Senate Judiciary committee that she has argued that the death penalty is "racist," and that it violates the "humanist" thinking of society?

Sonia Sotomayor

According to this report, she did just that in a memorandum in 1981. So perhaps there are two issues here: a) she didn't disclose this written opinion as required and 2) she see the death penalty as "racist" and against "humanist thinking."

JCN (Judicial Confirmation Network) Counsel Wendy Long sent a letter Friday to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and members of the committee arguing that Sotomayor had not properly complied with this requirement because she had not submitted the 1981 memo on capital punishment. “It is . . . clear that (Sotomayor) has omitted controversial material from her past in which she asserts that '[c]apital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society' and advocated public opposition to restoring the death penalty in New York state,” Long wrote to the committee

The memo is to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and is from the Task Force of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund which included Sotomayor. The memo rendered an opinion on a Bill to Restore the Death Penalty in New York State. The memo says the Task Force "reviewed major literature about the issue of the death penalty and found there was an impressive array of highly respectable organizations which have taken a public position opposed to restoration of the death penalty. A summary of the memo's points supporting the "public position" of opposition are as follows. Note that some is word-for-word and some is my paraphrase. Follow the link here to a pdf of the memo or to the transcription:

1) The death penalty is final and eliminates all possibility of reform of the offender. The possibility of mistaken identity is discussed. 2) The evidence for capital punishment as a deterrent of crime is unconvincing. 3) Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society. A breakdown by percentage of ethnicity's on death row is given. 4) The problem of crime and violence in American society is so complex, it is unreasonable to think that capital punishment will result in preventing it or diminishing it. 5) Our present perspective on the meaning of our values in the Judeo-christian tradition, and the state of humanistic thinking in the world judge capital punishment as a violation of those values. 6) It is counter-productive [sic] we inflict death on the offender to manifest our opposition to his inflicting death on another. 7) It creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender and is/her family. 8) It becomes involved in lengthy legal procedures, and makes more difficult a process of more rapid enforcement of more benign forms of punishment. The memo ends with: In view of the broad consensus of representative religious and civic organizations, and in view of the rationale presented in opposition to Capital Punishment, the Task Force recommends that the Fund take a public position in opposition to the restoration of the Death Penalty in New York State.

The memo is signed by three persons, one of which is Sonia Sotomayor. I'm not an attorney but when I look at the 8 "arguments" above no judicial scholarship. No. 4 is pathetic. No. 5 plainly shows her globalist viewpoint. The only issue that holds water is the issue of a wrongly accused person.

Stopping Sotomayor Nomination: Yes We Can - Here's How

Thanks much to The FreedomMedium for offering this information. If you have a blog, please grab this for a post and help get the word out.

Sotomayor Nomination to U.S. Supreme Court: Yes We Can Stop it!

The FreedomMedium YES WE CAN! Damnit, We CAN stop Sotomayor! YES WE CAN! May 31, 2009

Most of the you who are reading this can probably stop reading right now.

Because unless you are ready to get the hell off of your dead butt and actually DO something, reading this is just going to be a waste of your time.

For the rest of you, there IS a way to stop Sonia Sotomayor from being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Seven Senators need to show some courage, they need to forget this crap about Sotomayors’ nomination being a foregone conclusion.

There are seven Republicans who are members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary. They are:

Tom Coburn(R-OK) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-5754

John Cornyn(R-TX) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-2924

Lindsey Graham(R-SC) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-5972

Chuck Grassely(R-IA) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-3744

Orrin G. Hatch(R-UT) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-5251

Jon Kyl(R-AZ) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-4521

Jeff Sessions(R-AL) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-4124

You can (and should) make your voice heard, even if your senator isn’t listed above.

Click here to find contact information for your Senator

The phone number for the main switchboard is (202) 224-3121

I’m not lisiting the information for the Democrats who are members of the committee, I feel pretty strongly that they will vote in favor of Sotomayor, regardless of what they may hear from their constituents. And we don’t need them.

According to Senate Judiciary Committee Rule IV:

“Debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.”

This means that if no Republican members of the committee vote in favor of further debate, Sotomayors’ nomination is dead in the water!!!!

If your Senator is not on the list, contact the Senator for your state and make your feelings known, these people do talk to each other.

For those of you whose Senator IS on the list, when you call or e-mail your Senator urging a vote against Sotomayor, hit them where a politician really feels it.

Tell them to forget this claptrap of being labeled as an obstructionist if they fail to go along with voting in favor of Sotomayor.

Make them aware of what voter backlash really is.

Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that if they fail to do the right thing, not only will you not vote for them the next time they are up for re-election, you will work actively for whoever is running against them!

Barack Obama is testing the Republican Party, thinking they will roll over and play dead on this issue.

And if they do, not only will he have been given a mandate for whatever socialist schemes he wants to ram down America’s throat for the rest of his administration, he will have a judge sitting on the Supreme Court who will carry on his legacy long after he is out of office.

Reject the GOP: Sharing the Disgust No. 3 - Rush Limbaugh is the Conservative Message

Number 3, of who knows how many. As a conservative, my husband and I feel we're marinating in disgust at the GOP and the RNC. I find my friends feel the same. I think sharing our disgust and our rejection of the GOP and the RNC is a good idea. Maybe it will inspire you and maybe you will realize you are not alone. This is not about a third party, as I have no clear opinion about the wisdom of that idea. This is only about rejecting the GOP, and letting them know why we think they are the curse of conservatism.

Rush Limbaugh Conservative Message

Here's some disgust I found as I was visiting around and I'm sharing it with you: FOX Nation printed a segment from Rush Limbaugh's show on May 27th. I'm assuming this is a message Rush wants to get out, so I too am taking his intellectual property "for the good of the people." The message to the GOP is "Go after Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and let America know who she is, which has nothing to do with the fact that she is a female and Hispanic." We do not care about her "life story." We may admire it, as we admire all who have worked hard to overcome obstacles, but her life story has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy. Our objection to her has everything to do with her judicial philosophy. Wake-up GOP!

*****

Rush Limbaugh May 27, 2009 RUSH: You know what my problem is, folks? I want to be very honest. I have never been an oppressed minority, even though I am in a minority. I don't think like one. Conservatism is an oppressed minority today. The Republican Party is an oppressed minority. The only problem I have is I don't think that way. But they all do. When you're an oppressed minority, what do you do? You willingly go to the back of the bus and you willingly shut up and you willingly don't make waves. If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority, and it knows how to behave as one. It shuts up. It doesn't cross bridges; it doesn't run into the Bull Connors of the Democrat Party; it is afraid of the fire hoses and the dogs, it's compliant. The Republican Party today has become totally complacent. They are an oppressed minority; they know their position; they know their place. They go to the back of the bus. They don't use the right restroom and the right drinking fountain, and they shut up. I don't think this way. I don't think of myself as an oppressed minority or as a member of an oppressed minority, and I hope I never do think of myself as one. I'm just an American. Truth is the truth. I'm an enlightened individual, and an enlightened individual is one who seeks truth. Barack Obama is not an enlightened individual. He is a narcissist. Barack Obama seeks himself, seeks adoration, adulation. He's like narcissists. He's stuck on his own reflection in the mirror, in a pool of water. He's not substantive. He sees himself the way he sees a reflection of himself, and he wants everybody else to see him the same way. Barack Obama thinks of himself as a member of an oppressed minority, but he's not taking it, he's fighting back. He's going to go so far as to desecrate the Constitution to address his grievances. The Republican Party, they've mastered it, they've got it down pat. Washington, DC, may as well be -- (interruption) what, Snerdley? Washington, DC, is the Old South for Republicans, if you want to draw the analogy. They have gotten comfortable being an oppressed minority and they play the game; they don't speak out; they shut up. And when they do get gutsy and try to shut up or speak up, they do so in a way that won't offend anybody. The Wall Street Journal, November 15th, 2003, Review and Outlook: "'Why The Democrats Borked Estrada, In Their Own Words' -- Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is. This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over -- and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts." This is a memo to Dick Durbin. "You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). ... The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent." November 7th, 2001, memo to Senator Durbin. "The groups singled out three -- Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit) -- as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (DC Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible." There are other memos in the story to Senator Kennedy telling him who to meet with and how to react and how to behave. But here's a memo to Dick Durbin from the special interest group saying that Miguel Estrada on the DC circuit must be opposed because he's Latino. Why? The Democrats get away with opposing people because they're Latino. We get punished if we oppose somebody because they're Latino. And we have to shut up because somebody's Latino. We have gone out, we've had two people in our party literally, John McCain and George W. Bush, grant amnesty to how many millions of illegal Hispanics in the country. Did it get anybody anywhere, electorally? Estrada, nominated for a high court position, Alberto Gonzales, they were opposed because they're Latino, by the Democrats. Now, they didn't say so publicly. These are internal memos. But the Democrats can oppose Latinos left and right and they can oppose blacks left and right, and they never seem to pay a price for doing that. Why is that? Why does nobody get concerned if Democrats may be alienating voters from these various groups? Why when they opposed Clarence Thomas did they not suffer one loss of a black vote? Why? And yet the Republicans have been made to believe, in their currently extinct status, that opposing Sonia Sotomayor simply because she's Latina will ruin their chances for the Hispanic vote, a vote they don't have anyway and a vote they're not going to get this way. They're behaving like an oppressed minority. Whatever their masters tell them to say or do, not say or don't do, they say or don't say, they don't do. They are entirely compliant. They're obedient. The Republican Party today is totally obedient. Now, there are some exceptions. We got some great conservatives in the House. I'm talking about the old guard, country club blue-blooders that are trying to define the party and run it. They're obedient. They are so obedient that many of them endorse and vote the Democrat candidate. That's how obedient they are to their masters. They have mastered the art of thinking and acting as oppressed minorities who are not interested, by the way, in emancipation or freedom. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Lou in Pullman, Washington, as we stay on the phones. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for a great 20 years. RUSH: Yes, sir. CALLER: I want to get right to it. I want to take issue with my fellow subscriber Nancy. I think that we ought to be just like the Democrats. I think we should ignore gender, race, class and sexual orientation when the person that we're looking at doesn't agree with us. That's what they do. Look at Clarence Thomas. RUSH: We should emulate the Democrats and ignore what? CALLER: Gender, race, class and sexual orientation when the person doesn't agree with us. RUSH: Well, who's doing that now? CALLER: Well, the Democrats. RUSH: No. No, no, no. Tell me the Republicans who are opposing Sonia Sotomayor because she's a woman or a Latina? CALLER: Oh, none. But I think we should ignore the fact that she is and go right for the issues. RUSH: Well, it doesn't matter if we do. The media is all over the place with the fact she's a Latina, the first one ever nominated, first one nominated to the Supreme Court, the first woman, her compelling story. We're the ones that do ignore this stuff. We're the ones to whom none of this does matter. CALLER: Right. But my point is that Nancy thinks it's going to come back and bite us, but the Democrats do it all the time and it doesn't seem to bite them. RUSH: Yes, that's been my point all day. CALLER: Absolutely. I've been on hold for a long time. RUSH: I thought you said you agreed with Nancy. CALLER: No, no, no, no, no. RUSH: Oh. CALLER: Nancy, I want to take issue with her. RUSH: Oh. I thought you were disagreeing with me. CALLER: No, no. RUSH: Well, I apologize for the contentiousness. CALLER: No. RUSH: So you're just echoing what I said? CALLER: Yes. I think we ought to ignore -- they always do one thing. They take into account gender, race, and class. RUSH: Well, that's the point I've been making all day. These people, the Democrats can trash all kinds of blacks, minorities, Latinos, and it never seems to hurt them. Why does it only hurt us? When we do ignore it, it's not a factor to us. I couldn't care less, for example, where Sonia Sotomayor came from, what her race or gender is. She's a disaster on the basis of her history as a judge. Don in Vermilion, Ohio, nice to have on you on the EIB Network, sir, hello. CALLER: Thank you, it's a pleasure to speak with you. My point was in regard to the e-mail that you read earlier. From the standpoint of a conservative there's no such thing as an Hispanic vote, an Afro-American vote, a Native American vote, it doesn't make any difference. It is the same and it's so basic, just like you have been saying, it's so fundamental. I don't understand what's confusing about this. There's never been any question what the conservative response to anything should be because the fundamentals of conservatism are what our foundation is and there's never anything that's nebulous about that, very easy to understand. RUSH: Well, you're right. Let me paraphrase this. You're right as far as describing conservatives. But you're wrong if you want to include the Republican Party in it today, at least -- again, I better specify which Republicans I'm talking about. I'm talking about the old guard, the Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, the country club blue-blood, the Arlen Specter types. They're the ones who do want to do identity politics. Now, you say that conservatives, you know, the fundamental conservative does not look at people and see Hispanic or white, black, woman or whatever. And I know what you mean by that. You mean by that that as one who believes in the conservative ideology, we see people as people, we see people as Americans. We want a great country, and, as such, we want everybody to succeed. We want everybody to be as good as they can. We want everybody to strive to be the best they can, and in the process, we want to get all kinds of obstacles out of their way. We have faith, we have belief in ordinary people accomplishing extraordinary things, just get out of their way, inspire them and motivate them and they'll do it. The liberal looks at people with utter contempt, condescension and contempt, doesn't believe people are inherently good or qualified or competent or able to overcome these obstacles in life. By definition, the liberal who seeks power over people thus places these obstacles and makes people dependent and then says you can't do it without me. The Republican Party has bought into the notion here that we need to get that segment of the vote and then that segment of the vote and then that segment of the vote or population if they are to win. The Democrat Party, for almost its entirety has been a coalition of various interest groups. In fact, it's an amalgamation of coalitions. You've had Big Labor, you have feminism, you have Big Environmentalism, you have anti-capitalist, and they all have their own single issue pet peeves, but the thing that unites them is their belief and love of huge government controlling everybody else's lives. The Republican Party and the conservative movement was not put together with this kind of attitude, it's not put together with that kind of mind-set. Controlling people's lives? The basic difference is Democrats live and breathe, liberals live and breathe and they go to school to get trained to work in and control government. On the other hand what we want to do is reduce the size of government. We don't want to take over. We don't want to work there. We want to be in the private sector. So we're already at a bit of a disadvantage because their life, their world, is built around government. Ours is built around avoiding it, you know, making it as constitutional as it can be and function as it's constitutionally directed to, but then that's it. The liberals look at it in an entirely different way. Let me read something here real quick. Vin Weber this afternoon on Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, she spoke with Vin Weber, Republican strategist. She said, "Is there a real pitfall here for the Republican Party going after Sonia Sotomayor on her ethnicity when we've seen how Hispanic voters have flocked to Obama, in a real change from the way many more supported George W. Bush." WEBER: The front pages of just about every paper in this country today described this as President Obama picking the first Hispanic justice, and Republicans should be very wary of challenging that. Furthermore, when Republicans get holier-than-thou about identity politics, I remember how proud Republicans were when President Reagan named the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. We were proud that we broke that ground as Republicans. They'd better not start abandoning that and start pointing fingers about identity politics to the first Hispanic to go into the court or they're gonna find themselves in trouble. RUSH: I guess we have to throw Vin Weber in the group who's now a member of the oppressed minority. Vin, I don't know anybody who opposes her on ethnic grounds. I don't know anybody. I guess what these people are afraid of is that any opposition to her will be said to be based on ethnic grounds. Okay, so, to avoid them saying that about us, we won't say anything. We'll just throw in the towel. And then when we get our chance we're going to nominate a Latino -- oh, we did that, and it didn't help us. And then we're going to nominate a black -- oh, we did that. Didn't help us! This is not complicated to me, but see, I don't think like an oppressed minority. RUSH: Who said this? "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." And who said this? "Pressure makes diamonds." Same person uttered both quotes. Greetings. Great to have you here. It's El Rushbo on the cutting edge of societal evolution, on the most listened to radio talk show in America. Telephone number if you want to join us is 800-282-2882. E-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com. "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." How did you know that, Brian? How in the world did you know that? What, did somebody Google it real quick in there? That's right, it's general George Patton who said both. "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." Why am I saying this? Well, if the Republicans want to start thinking like Democrats, somebody's not thinking, and we know the Democrats are thinking and strategizing. "Pressure makes diamonds." That is also from George Patton. You know, I sit here, ladies and gentlemen, as I think about all of this debating within the GOP and with the Democrats. We conservatives, we really do have the best arguments. We have the most responsible policies. We have the most humane principles. The more we confront these people, the more we debate, the more we expose, the clearer that will become, not just to us, but to others. And that's why we have to keep it up. I'm getting a lot of e-mails, "Rush, please don't quit, please don't stop!" I have no intention of it, folks. I was telling Snerdley here during the break, I fully expect at some point in the near future to receive a phone call, a private phone call off air from somebody, somewhere in elected Republican Party politics asking me to tone it down. I fully expect this to happen. They are scared. This Supreme Court nomination, coupled with the election of Obama, this is, to them, these oppressed minorities rising and up finally saying we're not taking it anymore and you guys are going to find out what it's like to be an oppressed minority, and they're scared and they're willing to be oppressed minorities, the Republicans. They're willing to think that way. On the other hand, if we surrender to the left, if we surrender to these old guard moderates in the Republican Party who want to surrender to the left, none of this would be happening. Even in this, what do the moderates offer? They just repeat their platitudes, they tell us to keep quiet. They don't even want the debate. That scares them. The old guard moderates in the Republican Party have no faith in who they are because they have no idea what principles that they will defend. They don't even know what principles they will surrender. They have no confidence in who they are and what the nation is, but we do, we conservatives do. We are overflowing with confidence about who we are and what this nation is. But the Republican Party old guard, the blue-blood country clubbers do not. BREAK TRANSCRIPT: RUSH: Englewood, Florida. This is Tom. I'm glad you waited, sir. Great to have you with us. Hello. CALLER: Great to have you with me also. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: I agree with you 110% on the Sotomayor deal. The only thing is, I think that we need an attack dog on this situation, somebody in Congress that can take her over the coals just the way they did Bork and as you described. Look, they're gonna think of us anyhow has hypocrites and homophobes and racists so who cares anymore, you know, let's go after it, let the news media do what they want to do. RUSH: You know, there's -- CALLER: The only thing -- RUSH: Wait a minute. That's an interesting point. How can the Republican Party get in worse shape than they're already in? That's kind of what you're saying, how can they get themselves in any worse shape than they're in now? So what you're saying is a tried-and-true principle. If they're going to rip you anyway, at least tell the truth. CALLER: Exactly. You know, and I'll tell you who was on the other day on your show, I was listening, was Cheney, Liz Cheney. RUSH: Yeah. CALLER: I couldn't believe how easily she made those limp liberals look bad, you know. Too bad she's not a Senator. I'd like to see her question this woman. RUSH: Well, Liz right now is focused on the foreign policy aspects of the Obama administration. But I know what you're saying. CALLER: She's bright. RUSH: She's bright, but she's showing how it's done. She's going on television and she's giving a class, a tutorial on how not to accept the premises of the media and the left in these interviews. Look, I don't want to dishearten you out there, Tom, but there is no indication I see that this attack dog you envision exists. I don't see it. I see Chihuahuas. END RUSH LIMBAUGH Read Rush's background material here, and his 1997 prediction about Sonia Sotomayor here. Related: Rejecting the GOP: Sharing the Disgust - No. 1 Rejecting the GOP: Sharing the Disgust - No. 2