Larry McDonald often made that remark about the folks who surrounded him in Malfunction Junction.
For Obama not to have been pegged as a communist when this was uttered, shows how sound asleep Americans are.
I remember Leo Terrell quit working for or was blacklisted by the NAACP for supporting Rogers-Brown.
A reprise of some earlier claptrap by the anointed one. As one should expect, 0bama talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The simple fact is that Sotomayor is NOT qualified for the Federal bench at ANY level, and certainly not the Supreme Court.
The pubbies have to fight this nomination aggressively.
“Yet when it comes to laws protecting corporations and private property, she has decided that those laws should be interpreted broadly.”
So Senator Obama is on the record stating the a judge should not protect private property!
bttt
...Some of us who attended law school or are in business know there are a lot of real smart people out there whom you would not put in charge of stuff...
He actually said this?!!
Some Senator should read portions of this, verbatim, during Sotomayor’s hearing.
obama actually spent enough time in the senate chamber to deliver a speech? who knew?
Bump and save.
Nasty.
Spirit, THANK YOU for this post! The media should be talking about this........oh, forgive me, I was delusional for a moment.
God help America.
Bozos electing our judges.
This is interesting devolve, to read Obama’s words in 2005!
Justice Janice Rogers-Brown has a far more compelling life story than Sonia Sotomayor- Ms. Brown is grand daughter of a sharecropper slave with a superb legal mind. her opinions both as justice on the CA Supreme Court and on the DC Court are brilliant. But 0 opposed her because of her pro-life interpretation of the Constitution and her commitment to private property. If this is what 0 has said about Judge Brown, I say to the Republican senators please grow some spine and scuttle this Sotomayor nomination.
Larry McDonald often made that remark about the folks who surrounded him in Malfunction Junction.
Like OUR country?
PING and pass along....
Terry Anderson Show
May 31, 2009 Show.....
What do you think,
is she a racist or not?
...Terry continues the good fight for Sovereignty against the onslaught of illegal votes and those who pander for them...
http://www.theterryandersonshow.com/
Sundays - 9 PM Pacific Time
KRLA - 870 AM - L.A. — KDWN - 720 - Las Vegas — KFNX - 1100 AM - Phoenix — KCBQ - 1170 AM - San Diego
“If You Ain’t Mad, You Ain’t Payin’ Attention!”
Call-In Number - (866) 870-5752
TO ENACT THE “UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261885/posts
The Child Rights vs. parents agenda (and other agendae) is alive and well...
This is the Sovereignty USA ping list.
This is a low-volume list reserved for urgent/important pings.
On/off the list—FREEPmail me privately.
Who wrote this rubbish for 0bozo?
Janis Rodgers Brown
Her story is a lot more “compelling” than Red Sonia Sotamayor (damn commie!) ——>>>
Family and education
Born in Greenville, Alabama, Brown is an Alabama sharecropper’s daughter who attended segregated majority African American schools as a child. Her family refused to enter places of business that segregated blacks.[1] She earned her B.A. from California State University, Sacramento in 1974 and her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the UCLA School of Law in 1977. She worked her own way through law school while being a single mother. In addition, she received an LL.M. degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2004.
Brown has said that when she was young, she was so liberal in her politics that she was almost Maoist, although she is now conservative.[1]
Like AEI, GM, Chrysler etc eh.....?
Hoist meet petard.
Let me wrap up by making mention of a subtext to this debate. As was true with Clarence Thomas, as was true with Alberto Gonzales, as was true with Condoleezza Rice, my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time during this debate discussing Justice Brown’s humble beginnings as a child of a sharecropper. They like to point out she was the first African American to serve on the California Supreme Court. I, too, am an admirer of Justice Brown’s rise from modest means, just as I am an admirer of Alberto Gonzales’s rise from modest means, just as I am an admirer of Clarence Thomas’s rise from modest means, just as I am an admirer of Condoleezza Rice’s rise from modest means. I think it is wonderful. We should all be grateful where opportunity has opened the doors of success for Americans of every background.
Moreover, I am not somebody who subscribes to the view that because somebody is a member of a minority group they somehow have to subscribe to a particular ideology or a particular political party. I think it is wonderful that Asian Americans, Latinos, African Americans, and others are represented in all parties and across the political spectrum. When such representation exists, then those groups are less likely to be taken for granted by any political party.
I do not think that because Justice Brown is an African-American woman she has to adhere to a particular political orthodoxy, something that has been suggested by the other side of the aisle. Just as it would be cynical and offensive that Justice Brown be vilified simply for being a Black conservative, it is equally offensive and cynical to suggest that somehow she should get a pass for her outlandish views simply because she is a Black woman.
I hope we have arrived at a point in our country’s history where Black folks can be criticized for holding views that are out of the mainstream, just as Whites are criticized when they hold views that are out of the mainstream. I hope we have come to the point where a woman can be criticized for being insensitive to the rights of women, just as men are criticized when they are insensitive to the rights of women.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
“Just as it would be cynical and offensive that Justice Brown be vilified simply for being a Black conservative, it is equally offensive and cynical to suggest that somehow she should get a pass for her outlandish views simply because she is a Black woman.”
hmmmm....but Obama is suppose to get a pass for his outlandish marxism/fascism simply because he is a black man...or so the leftist media and democrats tell everyone.
Color me offended and cynical.
Great Post!
I received special thrills up my leg as I read the following quote:
“I believe if the American people could truly see what was going on here they would oppose this nomination, not because she is African American, not because she is a woman, but because they fundamentally disagree with a version of America she is trying to create from her position on the bench. It is social Darwinism, a view of America that says there is not a problem that cannot be solved by making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life’s lottery and does not consider who our parents were or the education received or the right breaks that came at the right time.”
Such a wonderful summation would make Marx proud, empathy at it’s best. This poseur of a presidet must go!
At first I thought I was reading satire.
He puts the exact same brand of mumbo jumbo into all of his speeches doesn’t he?
I’d rather be doing something else...
This is a distraction...
Let’s get back to what Americans really are concerned about...
There are two extremes to issues and I’m always the amazing magician who can see how stupid they all are while I am always right....
Guilty!
BUSTED! The media will have a field day with this. Oh, wait...LOL! (never mind)
None of the Obama voters care about this. They’re busy picking out the color and interiors of their new government issued GM cars!!!
Sorry, I tried but cannot get through the whole bag of barf that is/was UhBamUh’s “statement” there...I’ll scan the FReeper responses to get a sense of what was really said.
Ping for laugh later
self bump
Only a Stalinist stooge would play the "woman's right to choose" (for HER BODY) and make an anti-private property rights claim in the same argument.
A woman's body ends at the umbilical cord. We all know that it is child abuse for a mother to drink, smoke, and dope while pregnant. So is abortion.
I really don't think that Obama doesn't believe it isn't a human. He just doesn't think it is deserving of rights. There is no other excuse for his stance on blocking protection of a baby living under its own lung power for hours outside of the womb.
The man knows the already politically correct positions on the issues, he just doesn't know how to make the case for them. It all sounds good to him. He is ineffective at making the argument.