Mrs. Sotomayor's dealings with diabetes - DO NOT matter to her being on the Supreme Court. That is a human-sensitive issue meant to gain sympathy in her favor and is inappropriate in the Judicial system when evaluating a person based on qualifications - not who feels sorry for her. This is not Mrs. Sotomayor's fault, but the fault of the President, and others, who have felt it was a point of consideration for appointing her.

Mrs. Sotomayor's "Hispanic" origin as a point of consideration for appointing her is both disgusting to me as a fellow brother under the Lord, and appalling as an advocate of equal rights for all people WITHOUT discrimination. But, I suppose that Obama played the African American card like it was an Ace, why not have racial issues in the selection of a supreme court justice, too? And yes people - it is a racial point based on the same 'human-sensitive' platform that I discussed previously.

Mrs. Sotomayor's saving of baseball is another, blatant abuse by her supporters (the President amongst them, who felt that was an important addition to his introduction speech about her - when he couldn't even REMOTELY pronounce her name right - George bush anyone - calling her Sadamiyer (sounds like sodomizer without the z??) - which truthfully degraded every other good thing he had to say by bringing 'baseball,' in as a key point of electing judicial officials to the Supreme Court?) - this point should not even be brought up. She did NOT "save" baseball. She is not a "hero," and saving baseball is not a hard hitting issue that really equates to something such as... the death penalty. And, if you don't get that - and aren't on death row - you don't get to comment.

Mrs. Sotomayor's subtle attempts at dismissing appeals court experience was an example of her lack of experience in a formal, public setting. The truth is - the Constitution does not stand. Contentions to the Constitution do NOT come from those trying to break the law - they come from PROSECUTORS, pushing past the boundaries set by the Constitution to incriminate anyone they can for money, and it is the responsibility of appeals court justices to rule when brought to their attention. It's vital - VITAL to note - that the justice system does NOT rest upon the standards of the Constitution, but upon caselaw and precedence. I was actually glad to see a judge with this type of experience, available to replace the same judge on the Supreme Court (and from the news said - I have no verification on this- the ONLY one) with that type of experience. For Mrs. Sotomayor to dismiss it and try to ease into it with, "I know..." was not wholly appropriate. Yes, we "know," you "know," the truth is that the Constitution is being negated - but that's not what you were being asked!! ARGH!

Enter: America's Worst Media Reporters.

Robert Lovato: "Sotomayor should remember it's not she who is on trial, but the Republican party." He goes on to say that it will be a test of the Republican party to see if they're ready to renew the fundamental principals of justice. WHAT?? What principals? The ones whereby Sotomayor has experience as an appeals judge and the Constitution does not need to stand as law? I'm pretty sure, that's NOT a fundamental principal of justice. Maybe he's talking about pre-constitution times when English Jurisprudence still ruled the land and we had things like the Salem Witch Trials? Of course.. that's what's going on in the justice system today for those who have had the whereforall to watch the news....

Well, thank goodness the Democrats who are in control of Congress have something reasonable to say, like Senator Patrick Leahy, who tells us that it's good that Sotomayor is Hispanic because that will better reflect "equal justice under law." WHAT?? So - are you saying that Sotomayor being Hispanic means she will better handle the Hispanic community? Does that mean that the Supreme Court is expecting a lot of Hispanic people to now be brought before them (and is therefore a racist comment)? Does that mean the other judges, white, oriental and black are racist? Wouldn't that mean that Sotomayor as a Hispanic would be biased against a white? See how this is a STUPID issue that does NOT belong here. And, yet - it IS the consideration of many in Congress, for Sotomayor's appointment. Sorry to say, but even if she is qualified, she now has to be discounted or else we continue to push the issue of segregation in America further.

Perhaps Jennifer Donahue has offered valuable insight by stating that Justice Thomas' statement that he was a victim of a 'high-tech lynching' was the end of a miscarriage of justice against poor, Clarence Thomas? Perhaps, Ms. Donahue's very first coverage of a Supreme Court appointment was about as worthless to her career as 'valuable insight,' as her current article on the Sotomayor debate is to ... um.. reality? Justice Thomas' statement was a racist slam in his favor. There was no, "high tech," involved, he was playing the race card, in hopes of saving face, to "lynch," the Supreme Court and the GOP into a forced appointment lest they now become biggots. She believes the Republicans are only putting up a fight to, "keep the base happy," and maybe she's right. But, then again, maybe Clarence Thomas wasn't playing the race card and was really being threatened with a good, ol' fashion, southern-style lynchin'!! And, maybe - America can quit acting like stupid sheeple and recognize stupidity for what it is - stupidity.

The point is this: while it's been stated that Sotomayor has more experience in her pre-Supreme Court Justice status than any of the others had who currently serve when they were in the same position, less is being said about her qualifications and more about playing a race card, a human-sensitive/sympathy card and a pressure card against Republicans. Why? It would be a waste of space to repost the many concerns here, so I'll reference them for your reading:

The Case Against Sotomayor

Sotomayor's Judicial Record Could be a Battlefield for Critics: "Judge Sotomayor will need to reassure the country that she will set aside her biases, uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution as written, not as she believes it should have been written.." (didn't Senator Leahy state that he supported her equal justice stance???? doesn't that seem like he has NO CLUE what he's doing either??)

Sotomayor and Race

Why these issues? Why not just flat out attack Sotomayor, or support Sotomayor for her judicial qualifications? Because, these are the cards that a race-card President and race-card, Democrat President played, and they know it worked. The people voted for it, gave it support like ignorant sheep, and now they're seeing the fruits of their ignorance. Why race? Because I HATE race topics. Race topics SEGREGATE this country, and our people, and are NOT AMERICAN. What to do now? Again, I'll re-emphasize, that I have no doubt that the non-Constitutional issues - NON CONSTITUTIONAL - standards - upon which Sotomayor is being judged, will pressure the Senate into supporting her. I have no doubt that YOUR elected officials (not mine - I DIDN'T vote for them), will fail you, as representatives of YOUR best interest. However, there will be consequences from this decision as well - and we won't get to see the full ramifications of those consequences, I'm afraid, until it's too late. Remember - the Supreme Court is a LIFE position - who we put on now - will be there FOR LIFE - not 2 years, not 4 years - but more like - THIRTY OR FOURTY! We can't make half-cooked decisions from half-summed up information. The vote for a Supreme Court Justice official is a vote of grave importance. What I feel should have been addressed:

• Her support for or against the Constitution (especially as an appeals court judge).
• Her support for or against (or knowledge or lack of knowledge of) the 30% of prison population being INNOCENT and not being afforded their rights.
• Her support for or against (or knowledge or lack of knowledge of) the failure for effective, indigent defense, the failure to hold prosecutors accountable or responsible, the corruption running rampant in law enforcement.

These would have been worthy issues upon which Sotomayor could have stood. Now, it's too late. Now, we're going to see this happen, and we - the people - the ones who make up this country and will be affected by EACH AND EVERY decision this woman makes (including decisions supported by pressure from special interest groups such as the Latino group), will realize, too late, what segregation will do to our Country.

A house divided CAN NOT STAND.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzX6tkLmgAM&feature=related

For those that take the time to view the above video, you will have already heard the attack on ex-governor, Jesse Ventura, for his book speaking out against the American government, warning the people of its lies, deception and our eventual fall into facism. Let me give you a couple of quick definitions on facism:

• a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
• A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting ...

I'm not sure what that says to you, but what it says to me, are principals that are NOT, inherently, democratic or republic. It is not a system whereby the people's vote counts or the people are included in the incorporation of laws and principals such as the Patriot Act, when abused on American soil by law enforcement, act as the foundation of a Marxist Socialism. Yet, for those of you that took the time to watch the ENTIRE video - and didn't read the streaming media below the individuals speaking - watch it again. What is the main news? The main news is about the invasion of the FLDS church by law enforcement officials, barging in to an open, unlocked Church, with semi-automatic weapons and bashing in the doors of the office building, taking records, taking children and putting them through hell. There are videos of the law enforcement admitting to acting without a search warrant and acting in contrast to the rights guaranteed through the Fourth Amendment. (Let's not forget the 400+ children... FOUR HUNDRED... that had to be returned by DHS because of their blatant disregard for the truth, facts, liberty or JUSTICE)!!

Now - watch the video. Hmm, is Sean Hannity ATTACKING Jesse Ventura for trying to warn the people that we are on the road to Fascism? [And, in my personal opinion - this is the type of comic/tragedy scene which could otherwise only be written of by Shakespeare himself....] Of course... this is probably isolated.. right?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4096/ - read what this man has to say - a LOT of it is excellent and is of importance to us, as a people, but be aware, there are always truths within truths.

While I hold Glenn Beck in great esteem for his willingness to REALLY listen to both sides of the issues, he throws around the word "socialism" against the current President, as much as he fought against it during a Republican regime. It's not that Glenn Back stated that he was okay with some of the government's decisions, but he doesn't discuss the fact that "distributed wealth," has EXISTED since the civil war when war vets were supported by the government, and that welfare has been a form of distributed wealth EVER since. There is, of course, a significant difference with what Mr. Obama is trying to do, but I think those distinctions MUST be made in order to clarify these issues for the people, or they will confuse things like "socialism" with "marxist socialism" and "marxist socialism" with "distribution of wealth."

This list of talk show hosts goes on. And, as I've stated in my earlier article on their ignorance of the global climate crisis, they forget the powerful influence they have on people and their real responsibility. You see folks, this is similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. The government after WWI was composed of England, France and several others that marched into Germany, and spent a LONG time persecuting their people, RAPING their women and CHILDREN, murdering the parents in front of their children and vice versa, decimating their economy and severely abusing the people. The "local" government (primarily Jewish) was given control and even they, to an extent, held the German people in a certain amount of control to keep everything 'calm'. (BTW - if you don't know this story - it's because it WASN'T in your textbooks - because the Government we are now speaking about - America - lied - sorry - look it up for yourself). When Hitler tried to speak out against the oppressive control and abuse of his people, his family was hurt and he was thrown in prison for being a troublemaker -

And he broke.

The National Socialist German Worker's Party, began by appealing to a middle class of oppressed people, blaming their trouble on the communists, the Jews (their inherent government), their so-called 'allies,' and the Versailles Treaty. Of course, the Versailles treaty and their so-called 'allies' WERE responsible for what was happening to them. The Jewish government WAS telling them to be quiet and take the abuse, and of course - EVERYONE blames communism. So - what's the parallel?

Our Radio Talk show hosts are now throwing around the word, "Socialism," like candy, [appearing to be] with clueless about its REAL definition. In fact, the "socialism," that they are talking about is "Marxist" socialism - the same principles that were held by Stalin and Hitler both. Marxist was a Darwinian who redefined the meaning of socialism to fit his concept that the people were too weak to survive and so "big brother" had to help. This is much like Hitler throwing around the word "communism" without too much understanding of its definition. And, of course, the government propogands that they are right while the individual parties, like the Socialist workers and the DJ's (not equating the two - let's not be ignorant - Hitler was a tyrant who NEEDED to die (and a patsy to those using him), while DJ's are just that - DJ's with opinions in a country where they have the right to express them... for now... I'm just pointing out parallels), throw out arguments that they are right and the government is lying. What happens?

People are torn. Of course, this is where Hitler was able to create his 25 point doctrine and lead people in the direction he did. It's almost the same fragile point that America is in, where one person will say the key words that people want to hear, and they will fight for a cause. What to think about this? Well - that's the point - YOU NEED to think for YOURSELF. Sure, listen to what they have to say. There are ALWAYS three sides to every story. But, to give you an idea:

ALL the right-wing talk show hosts are attacking the 'global warming' folks. The government is trying to support a renewable energy package that may or may not help to mitigate this issue, but in the end, it is falling under attack for that same reason. And, what's the argument of the talk show hosts: "Maybe these 'global warming' folks need to look outside their window at the snow and rain and how cold it is!" I won't go into the argument presented in an earlier post on this site, but the fact is, when they take a position, without the truth or knowledge about what's REALLY going on behind the scenes, they can talk about issues in a way that's DANGEROUS to the American public. People ignore a growing concern that "could" come back to hurt them (notice I said could - the point being - DON'T dismiss the issue - just keep everything in perspective until you've heard it all).

Sounds like Sean Hannity making fun of Jesse Ventura for saying the government's being oppressive one year, and then the next year crying to the people for "their support" because the government's trying to "oppress" him. Maybe - if he had the facts that Ventura did - Maybe, if he HAD LISTENED and addressed issues on a fair platform, he might actually be worth his weight in salt. Without that, he's NOT reporting the news. Is Ventura right? I don't know - I'm NOT there... but I will listen, without mocking, and I will pay attention to the world around me and consider everything going on - not live in a comfy little box. Will I stop listening to Hannity? Of course not - the usual songs on the radio suck and I'm too lazy to change the channel and I like background noise. Of course, I'll hear what he and other hosts have to say, but occassionally, knowing the truths that THEY DON'T - and seeing how they react when they find themselves at gunpoint - I'll continue to enjoy them as news sources with opinions that STILL need to be followed up on and checked on... in orde to THINK FOR MYSELF. Of course, I won't give the liberal media news reporters who also blatantly stick their feet in their mouths any greater attention either. And, what's sad, is that lines will be drawn. The people are feeling the oppression being placed upon them financially, and they are NOT thinking for themselves. They are feeling the fear of a Gestapo-style law enforcement. The people they trust to tell them the truth are occassionally speaking without full consideration of the truth. And, we are all at that vital stage that split Germany - part into the NAZI part, the other part into submission and fear. This is NOT about the talk show hosts - this is about YOU - the people!

So - be careful what your radio talk show hosts tell you. They are telling you ONLY what they believe. They are telling it to you from their perspective. They are NOT "giving it to you straight," "bringing you the news you need to hear," "telling you the truth that the liberals won't." They are telling you what they feel is true and right. Sure, when they say the President lied and there ARE earmarks in his bill, that's the truth and yes, the President lied. But, listen to folks like Dennis Miller who has changed his mind more times than Bill Clinton changes female "assistants" and is more wishy-washy than the current administration. He was against Obama during the election, then for him, then against and for, and then for him when Obama was President, and now against him with this new budget. Is Dennis wrong? Nope. Dennis is not wrong. Is Dennis making any sense? To a certain degree, at each flip-flop, he is. What does it all mean? It means - he goes with the flow - whatever is popular. He's in the business to make money - not ramble because he's bored (like me) - the same as the rest of them are. And a salesman is, was and always will be - a salesman. Sometimes, they are just telling you what you want to hear, when you want to hear it - and sometimes - the truth is quite different.

And now - they attack Bush - the ones who supported him. They mock the man they helped to get elected. And, worst of all - you KNOW they don't go back and watch their shows, because if they did - they'd see what I pointed out to you in that first link.

Of course - it IS talk radio, and on talk radio - in-between their broadcasts, are the radio announcements for the Federal Department of Justice trying to get everyone to sign up to the National Registry, giving all their information to the government to help control for them. But, have any of you noticed that ad? Did you even hear it? Can you even begin to understand the devastating and dangerous implications that holds for the future of what is supposed to be a "free" country? If not - the reason is simple: the people you're listening to and trusting to tell you the "truth of the matter," are only telling you what is good for the moment, and you are so confused about the future, that it's too difficult to look ahead and see what's coming.