May 29, 2009
Cheaters now Control America
Source: Bill Donohue
Source: Pat Buchanan
Obama's Idea of Justice
We deserved it
Cheaters now run America!
When we agreed to affirmative action, where the disadvantaged could cheat to get ahead, then we should not have been surprised to find an entire class of fraudulantly promoted people leading this country, who have no qualms about cheating.
President Obama is a cheater, who selects a cheater for the Supreme Court, who in turn judges in favor of cheaters.
It is pretty obvious that Judge Sotomayor was long ago promoted way beyond her intellectual capacity, and that she knowingly and without qualms accepted these promotions, where she jumped ahead of more qualified candidates, and we find that she will now be in a position to insure that others can immorally cut in line to get into a good school, or into get a good job.
American with Disability just wants a fair shake
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia, studied hard for the firefighting exam and placed 6th, earned a right to be promoted.
Under the "American with Disabilities Act (ADA)", Frank could have sued for his cut-in-line, but instead he sued to be promoted to an officer simply because he was the best man for the job.
He wanted the job fair and square, as the old saying goes.
His lawsuit, Ricci v. DeStefano, came before Judge Sotomayor in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals where she shamelessly helped throw out his case.
Per Judge Sotomayor, white men can be discriminated against. All test scores were thrown out because no blacks scored high enough. The city had even farmed the test out to a company that insures tests was not racially discriminatory, as in the often used example "Yacht is to Regatta as boat is to ____."
One would think that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (Her words, not mine)
If Latinas have been so viciously discriminated against in the past, then they should have "empathy" with white firefighters being discriminated against, right?
Isn't that the politically correct way of saying that "she feels our pain?"
But she doesn't feel any pain but her own, she refused to prevent white fire-fighters from being discriminated against.
Merit System vs Spoils System
As in all arguments made by leftist Pharisees, all logic works in their favor.
A long time ago, Ivy League schools strived to represent a cross section of America. In a predominately Christian country, they had mostly Christians.
The Jewish Pharisees came along and remarked that they were far smarter than Christians and that they were being discriminated against, simply because of their religion.
If you did not use the "merit system" with Jews you were labeled anti-Semitic.
No one wants to be called anti-Semitic, so they started selecting students based upon who scored the highest grade. As would be expected, soon over half the graduating Law School students at Yale were Jewish
This was called the "merit system" and the Jewish media-Scribe press told us it was a far superior method in regards to fairness and equality to the "spoils system" practiced by the premier universities in trying to select and develop the future leaders for America.
Now, according to the Jewish media-Scribes, black men were not only a minority but were intellectually inferior to white men and the merit system did not encompass "fairness" or equality".
Black men could never "get ahead" using the "merit system".
For blacks, the universities and companies were made by federal law to use the "spoils system".
All "merit system" results where the best man were placed were outlawed.
If you used the "merit system" with blacks, you were labeled as racist.
Finally for women, they are the majority in life, the majority in universities, and even the Jewish media-Scribes say women are intellectually superior to men, and regular men absolutely love and adore women.
So, according to every indicator, women under the "Merit System" should dominate men, but do not for one reason or another.
So once again, those evil men were deemed to be harming women, it's just that no one could figure out how it was being done.
Nevertheless, the Jewish media-Scribes came along to tell us the we must have a "spoils system" for women too, where by federal law, women are "fairly" and "equitably" represented in the work force, regardless of why they were not in the past.
(P.S. the real reason why women are included is to gain a working majority - blacks, Hispanics, gays, women and their leaders -- the Pharisees.)
To Look at ones Religion or not
In the old days, a candidate was considered far superior if he or she accepted a Christian moral viewpoint -- charity, honesty, faithfulness, compassion.
These days, a Christian religious morality is considered a bad thing, (and I believe the ones telling us that being a good Christian is a bad thing are the Jewish Pharisees and Jewish media-Scribes.)
Catholic League President Bill Donohue points out the double standard for all to see.
When devout Catholic Judge John Roberts was being considered for the Supreme Court, it was considered fair game to ask what impact his morals and religion would have on his decisions upon all of us.
As for Judge Sotomayor, the Jewish media-Scribes know very well that Judge Sotomayor is a bad Catholic with no morals, so they do not want to make a big deal of it.
Who gets the Job?
So, who gets the job? The person with --
- the best morals,
- the best test-taker, or
- the best panhandler
Well, that depends entirely upon which class of people the Jewish media-Scribes have placed you in.
- What color is your skin?
- What sex are you?
- What religion are you?
May 27, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments today on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court:
When John Roberts was nominated to be on the high court, Senator Dick Durbin told CNN that he considered it fair game to probe Roberts about his Catholicism. Durbin released a glowing statement yesterday on Sotomayor that never mentioned her religion. When Roberts was questioned by Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Dianne Feinstein, they both asked him whether he agreed with President John F. Kennedy about separation of church and state. Neither even mentioned Sotomayor's religion in their respective statements yesterday.
When Roberts was nominated, Dahlia Lithwick, legal analyst for Slate, said, "I wouldn't underestimate the influence of his religion"; when Samuel Alito was nominated, Lithwick said that "People are very, very much talking about the fact that Alito would be the fifth Catholic on the Supreme Court if confirmed." Yesterday, Lithwick posted a lengthy piece on Sotomayor that never mentioned her religion. When Roberts was nominated, NPR's Nina Totenberg said that his wife was "a high officer of a pro-life organization. He's got adopted children. I mean, he's a conservative Catholic." Yesterday, she simply mentioned that Sotomayor attended Catholic schools without ever raising it as an issue. When Roberts was nominated, journalist Adele Stan noted his religion and said, "Rome must be smiling." Yesterday, in her positive assessment of Sotomayor, she never mentioned her religion.
What's going on? Are liberal Catholics Catholic? Obviously not, at least according to liberals. After all, if Sotomayor were known as a practicing Catholic, those who fretted over Roberts and Alito would have called 911 by now. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, however, put their worst fears to rest yesterday when he said of the Puerto Rican jurist, "I believe she was raised Catholic." If this is true, then the telling verb "raised" would explain why liberals like Sotomayor—she's one of those Catholics they can trust. Let's hope they're wrong.
You can read further at Solutions
Article located at: