Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich Doubles Down On Sotomayor Racism Charge
Time Magazine ^ | 5/30/09

Posted on 05/31/2009 3:03:20 PM PDT by lewisglad

Newt Gingrich grabbed cable news chatter all week after Twittering that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a "Latina woman racist." The ensuing controversy has not moderated his opposition.

Today, Renewing American Leadership, a 501(c)3 nonprofit that he heads, sent out an email to supporters calling on them to both "send blast faxes" to U.S. Senators demanding opposition to Sotomayor and contribute money to help the fight. The email opens with this quote, from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream: that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

It continues:

Can you imagine if the President of the United States nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who said this:

"My experience as a white man will make me a better judge than a Latina woman would be."

Or could you imagine if that same judge ruled from the bench to deny 18 African-American firefighters a promotion just because of their skin color?

That judge would be called a bigot -- and in my judgment, rightly so! Would there be any doubt that he would be FORCED to WITHDRAW his nomination for the Supreme Court?

(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.blogs.time.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: gingrich; newt; newtgingrich; racism; soniasotomayor; sotomayor; whitemales
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
full text of the letter from Newts 501c3

From the Desk of Newt Gingrich "I have a dream: that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

- Dr. Martin Luther King

Can you imagine if the President of the United States nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who said this:

"My experience as a white man will make me a better judge than a Latina woman would be."

Or could you imagine if that same judge ruled from the bench to deny 18 African-American firefighters a promotion just because of their skin color?

That judge would be called a bigot -- and in my judgment, rightly so! Would there be any doubt that he would be FORCED to WITHDRAW his nomination for the Supreme Court?

None.

There are only two options for how we govern ourselves – by laws, or by the will of those in power. The rule of law represents objective, dispassionate knowable standards that are applied and enforced equally to all citizens regardless of their background.

The will of those in power represents subjective, fleeting standards that are never fully known by any and are applied purely to satisfy the wishes of a small, concentrated group in power.

True justice is blind. It does not consider one's religion, wealth, race or in this case sex, family origin and ethnicity. To do so would be unjust.

To put someone on our nation's highest court who believes these traits should be considered in cases before the court, would be wrong.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proven, by her own admission, that she is such a judge. Knowing this, President Obama should withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Consider what Judge Sotomayor said about how her being a Latina woman will affect her decisions as a judge:

"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."

You read that right -- Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!

When did that view become acceptable?

If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview.

The checks and balances between the three branches of government are designed to prevent any small faction of society from exerting undue influence over the rest of us. If President Obama will not withdraw his nomination, then the Senate has a duty to ensure that judges with who hold these beliefs are not confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court.

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! The United States is a nation of immigrants from many backgrounds and their contributions have made our country great but that was made possible because our nation was built upon a solid foundation of law and order. The rule of law should be non-negotiable. It cannot be subordinated to ethnic or racial biases. To do so would be to make our Constitution arbitrary and meaningless undermining the very foundations of our society.

The rule of law is a crucial safeguard for the preservation of freedom.

As our civic and public leaders from many backgrounds have proven, America should continue to stand as a land of equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcomes. Cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court should be judged on the merits of the arguments rigorously tested against the United States Constitution. They should NOT be judged based on the racial and ethnic preferences of the judges making the decision!

Unfortunately, that's exactly what we'll get if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the Supreme Court -- a judge who will interpret the law based on her ethnic background, rather than based on the LAW. In fact, she has gone even further to say, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

These are actual quotes from Judge Sotomayor, spoken at a symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in October 2001. And as if that wasn't enough to prove her ethnic-based (and gender-based) bias on the bench, that's not all she said:

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions... enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."

Remember, this is the same woman who, when speaking at Duke Law School, made it clear that she believes it is a judge's role to "legislate from the bench": responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she stated that the court "is where policy is made!" She tried to correct her slip, by joking that "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't ‘make law,' I know, I know." But, she already made herself clear: She believes JUDGES MAKE LAW!

She is wrong. Lawmakers make law NOT judges.

Words mean things and her words give her away. No amount of explaining or spin can change what she truly believes and if she is confirmed she will bring those beliefs to the Supreme Court.

And that wasn't just one little "slip" -- in a 1996 article she co-wrote for the Suffolk University Law Review, she said, "Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions."

It gets worse: According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of La Raza ("the Race"). The National Council of La Raza was the group that was willing to compromise our national security by promoting driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

The U.S. Supreme Court is no place for these kinds of judicial philosophies -- we need to STOP this nomination from going any further before it is too late!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! Of course, no one believes that any judge can be 100% impartial and unbiased in every situation. Judges are human beings, and will occasionally allow their personal biases to cloud their attempts at impartiality.

But this is VERY different -- this judge is making it CLEAR that she thinks she SHOULD be biased and partial, based on her ethnicity and gender!

As noted this week in The Hill, "these statements raise concerns about whether Sotomayor, who was raised under modest circumstances in the Bronx, would serve as a neutral arbiter in a case pitting a wealthy white male against a less wealthy man or woman of color."

To understand the judicial temperament Judge Sotomayer would bring to the Supreme Court, just look at one of her most controversial decisions -- Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor approved of the city of New Haven's racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions -- based on their skin color. This even provoked her own colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) to object to the issued opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!"

When judges make decisions based not on the application of law but on their personal biases about an issue at hand, the independence and authority of the judiciary is compromised.

Concerns about Sotomayor's activist view of the law grew so great that, despite the fact that President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the district court in 1991, 29 United States Senators voted against her nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998.

THIS time... she shouldn't even get a vote, and should be withdrawn from consideration. It's just not right -- every American should expect that their sons and daughters from every background can rise by applying the work ethic under equal protection under the law.

Your background should NEVER impact the application of law under the U.S. Constitution. It should not be a consideration by the judge or an expected consideration by the judged. Decisions made by the highest court in the land should be made on the basis of what is right and wrong -- not who is right and who is wrong!

When politicians, judges, or law enforcement officials choose to exercise their own judgment in lieu of what the citizens have decided in a Representative Republic, the very idea of self-government is eroded.

We must not be blinded by the allure of "good intentions". We cannot defend our liberties by ignoring the system that allows for the protection of those liberties in the first place. The rule of law is the means by which a free people protect their liberty in a society of equals.

Barack Obama has made a poor choice by sending Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Senate. If he does not correct his mistake, American who care about justice, must take action -- let the Senate know that you OPPOSE this nomination. And we've got a GREAT way to do that!

We've set up a website where you can send "blast faxes" to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE SENATE, telling them to REJECT Sotomayor's nomination as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice! For less that what it would cost you to gather every fax number and send all those faxes yourself, you can send SCORES of faxes, ALL AT ONCE to Capitol Hill -- to make SURE they hear your voice!

BUT... we have to act QUICKLY! Sotomayor's nomination will be debated very soon in the Senate Judiciary Committee! SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT

JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! Your friend,

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House Renewing American Leadership

P.S. The Obama White House is already attacking me for pointing out the obvious: that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. When he was specifically asked at the daily briefing to respond to my statements, spokesman Robert Gibbs gave a very ominous warning to anyone who dares to challenge this nomination:

"I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation."

Well, I am not going to back down and neither should you. I see the damage that this nomination could do to our Constitution... and our country. We MUST stop Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court -- or any OTHER nomination that threatens the Republic. Justice demands it!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!

1 posted on 05/31/2009 3:03:21 PM PDT by lewisglad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

Aside from the question of whether it’s good or bad politics, there is absolutely no doubt that what she said was racist, and that if any white male nominee had made a similar statement, he’d no longer be the nominee.


2 posted on 05/31/2009 3:05:46 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

I was pretty sickened to see Jeff Sessions out there praising her.


3 posted on 05/31/2009 3:06:01 PM PDT by exist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

Do we need to post anything from Time? They are always biased so why even give more people the option to click on their web site?

JoMa


4 posted on 05/31/2009 3:06:37 PM PDT by joma89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

Viva Newt!

I’m such a fan that I’m almost willing to overlook his conversion to Globalwarmingism.

Almost.

Nevertheless, he’s the strongest, smartest, most philosophically coherent voice we have on most subjects.

Hank


5 posted on 05/31/2009 3:07:49 PM PDT by County Agent Hank Kimball (Eat Hooterville Rutabagas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The Estrada comparison is a particularly good one, and should send up even more red flags. (although not enough for the RINO’s to call a full blown filibuster yet)


6 posted on 05/31/2009 3:08:32 PM PDT by lewisglad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...

From the Desk of Newt Gingrich “I have a dream: that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

- Dr. Martin Luther King

Can you imagine if the President of the United States nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who said this:

“My experience as a white man will make me a better judge than a Latina woman would be.”

Or could you imagine if that same judge ruled from the bench to deny 18 African-American firefighters a promotion just because of their skin color?

That judge would be called a bigot — and in my judgment, rightly so! Would there be any doubt that he would be FORCED to WITHDRAW his nomination for the Supreme Court?

None.

There are only two options for how we govern ourselves – by laws, or by the will of those in power. The rule of law represents objective, dispassionate knowable standards that are applied and enforced equally to all citizens regardless of their background.

The will of those in power represents subjective, fleeting standards that are never fully known by any and are applied purely to satisfy the wishes of a small, concentrated group in power.

True justice is blind. It does not consider one’s religion, wealth, race or in this case sex, family origin and ethnicity. To do so would be unjust.

To put someone on our nation’s highest court who believes these traits should be considered in cases before the court, would be wrong.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proven, by her own admission, that she is such a judge. Knowing this, President Obama should withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Consider what Judge Sotomayor said about how her being a Latina woman will affect her decisions as a judge:

“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.”

You read that right — Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!

When did that view become acceptable?

If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview.

The checks and balances between the three branches of government are designed to prevent any small faction of society from exerting undue influence over the rest of us. If President Obama will not withdraw his nomination, then the Senate has a duty to ensure that judges with who hold these beliefs are not confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court.

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! The United States is a nation of immigrants from many backgrounds and their contributions have made our country great but that was made possible because our nation was built upon a solid foundation of law and order. The rule of law should be non-negotiable. It cannot be subordinated to ethnic or racial biases. To do so would be to make our Constitution arbitrary and meaningless undermining the very foundations of our society.

The rule of law is a crucial safeguard for the preservation of freedom.

As our civic and public leaders from many backgrounds have proven, America should continue to stand as a land of equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcomes. Cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court should be judged on the merits of the arguments rigorously tested against the United States Constitution. They should NOT be judged based on the racial and ethnic preferences of the judges making the decision!

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what we’ll get if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the Supreme Court — a judge who will interpret the law based on her ethnic background, rather than based on the LAW. In fact, she has gone even further to say, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

These are actual quotes from Judge Sotomayor, spoken at a symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in October 2001. And as if that wasn’t enough to prove her ethnic-based (and gender-based) bias on the bench, that’s not all she said:

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions... enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Remember, this is the same woman who, when speaking at Duke Law School, made it clear that she believes it is a judge’s role to “legislate from the bench”: responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she stated that the court “is where policy is made!” She tried to correct her slip, by joking that “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know, I know.” But, she already made herself clear: She believes JUDGES MAKE LAW!

She is wrong. Lawmakers make law NOT judges.

Words mean things and her words give her away. No amount of explaining or spin can change what she truly believes and if she is confirmed she will bring those beliefs to the Supreme Court.

And that wasn’t just one little “slip” — in a 1996 article she co-wrote for the Suffolk University Law Review, she said, “Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”

It gets worse: According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of La Raza (”the Race”). The National Council of La Raza was the group that was willing to compromise our national security by promoting driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

The U.S. Supreme Court is no place for these kinds of judicial philosophies — we need to STOP this nomination from going any further before it is too late!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! Of course, no one believes that any judge can be 100% impartial and unbiased in every situation. Judges are human beings, and will occasionally allow their personal biases to cloud their attempts at impartiality.

But this is VERY different — this judge is making it CLEAR that she thinks she SHOULD be biased and partial, based on her ethnicity and gender!

As noted this week in The Hill, “these statements raise concerns about whether Sotomayor, who was raised under modest circumstances in the Bronx, would serve as a neutral arbiter in a case pitting a wealthy white male against a less wealthy man or woman of color.”

To understand the judicial temperament Judge Sotomayer would bring to the Supreme Court, just look at one of her most controversial decisions — Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor approved of the city of New Haven’s racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions — based on their skin color. This even provoked her own colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) to object to the issued opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!”

When judges make decisions based not on the application of law but on their personal biases about an issue at hand, the independence and authority of the judiciary is compromised.

Concerns about Sotomayor’s activist view of the law grew so great that, despite the fact that President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the district court in 1991, 29 United States Senators voted against her nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998.

THIS time... she shouldn’t even get a vote, and should be withdrawn from consideration. It’s just not right — every American should expect that their sons and daughters from every background can rise by applying the work ethic under equal protection under the law.

Your background should NEVER impact the application of law under the U.S. Constitution. It should not be a consideration by the judge or an expected consideration by the judged. Decisions made by the highest court in the land should be made on the basis of what is right and wrong — not who is right and who is wrong!

When politicians, judges, or law enforcement officials choose to exercise their own judgment in lieu of what the citizens have decided in a Representative Republic, the very idea of self-government is eroded.

We must not be blinded by the allure of “good intentions”. We cannot defend our liberties by ignoring the system that allows for the protection of those liberties in the first place. The rule of law is the means by which a free people protect their liberty in a society of equals.

Barack Obama has made a poor choice by sending Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Senate. If he does not correct his mistake, American who care about justice, must take action — let the Senate know that you OPPOSE this nomination. And we’ve got a GREAT way to do that!

We’ve set up a website where you can send “blast faxes” to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE SENATE, telling them to REJECT Sotomayor’s nomination as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice! For less that what it would cost you to gather every fax number and send all those faxes yourself, you can send SCORES of faxes, ALL AT ONCE to Capitol Hill — to make SURE they hear your voice!

BUT... we have to act QUICKLY! Sotomayor’s nomination will be debated very soon in the Senate Judiciary Committee! SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT

JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! Your friend,

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House Renewing American Leadership

P.S. The Obama White House is already attacking me for pointing out the obvious: that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. When he was specifically asked at the daily briefing to respond to my statements, spokesman Robert Gibbs gave a very ominous warning to anyone who dares to challenge this nomination:

“I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”

Well, I am not going to back down and neither should you. I see the damage that this nomination could do to our Constitution... and our country. We MUST stop Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court — or any OTHER nomination that threatens the Republic. Justice demands it!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!


7 posted on 05/31/2009 3:09:06 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

I agree with Rush that this confirmation can’t be stopped. So, what’s Newt up to? I believe he’s polishing his conservative credentials which he damaged in the global warming “debate”.

However, his opposition, like Rush’s, helps illuminate just what kind of President Obama is. Many O voters are having buyers remorse. This will help even more see the error of their ways.


8 posted on 05/31/2009 3:10:51 PM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

she will get confirmed. but exposing her will help the GOP


9 posted on 05/31/2009 3:10:57 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <----go there now, NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

i am not a NEWT fan but I appreciate it when he is right


10 posted on 05/31/2009 3:11:42 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <----go there now, NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

There is not goingt to be a filibuster because the GOP just doesn’t have enough votes for a filibuster. The only thing they can do is make this a “teachable moment” which might come back to bite the Dems in 2010.

I would suggest that in addition to the routine questions about abortion that don’t get answered, the GOP questioners should ask about the death penalty, guns, and the supremecy of US over foreign law. Those are issues which she might refuse to talk about because they might come up, but the more she dodges them, the more suspicious conservatives will be of her.


11 posted on 05/31/2009 3:13:24 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

Say it, Newt!


12 posted on 05/31/2009 3:28:37 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Palin- Newt 2012!


13 posted on 05/31/2009 3:29:22 PM PDT by lewisglad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad
Right, Newt. Here's my check. /s

INSANITY: Repeating the same failed actions while expecting different results.

14 posted on 05/31/2009 3:32:59 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

I could go for that.


15 posted on 05/31/2009 3:34:38 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
We could filibuster if Olympia Snowe wasn't in close contact with the Obama adiminstration about this nomination (according to the papers)

Just procedurally delay her until she sinks on her own weight

16 posted on 05/31/2009 3:35:15 PM PDT by lewisglad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball
...his conversion to Globalwarmingism.

Could you cite source(s) where Newt states that he believes 'global warming' to be a man-made phenomenon?

17 posted on 05/31/2009 3:36:15 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad
True justice is blind. It does not consider one's religion, wealth, race or in this case sex, family origin and ethnicity. To do so would be unjust.

To put someone on our nation's highest court who believes these traits should be considered in cases before the court, would be wrong.

Newt's right on this...

18 posted on 05/31/2009 3:37:25 PM PDT by GOPJ (To a community organizer, every citizen looks like a victim entitled to someone else's money-Philbin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite
I agree with Rush that this confirmation can’t be stopped. So, what’s Newt up to? I believe he’s polishing his conservative credentials which he damaged in the global warming “debate”.

Or maybe he really believes she is a racist.

19 posted on 05/31/2009 3:38:22 PM PDT by Larry381 ("in the final instance civilization is always saved by a platoon of soldiers" Oswald Spengler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

Newt would be an excellent addition to a Palin administration.


20 posted on 05/31/2009 3:39:24 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry381

When it comes to politicians the first thing I think about (because that’s the first thing they think about) is how will this benefit them politically. If you think in those terms instead of whether or not they are acting based on a set of beliefs you will be far less disappointed when you discover they were acting out of political self interest.


21 posted on 05/31/2009 3:43:08 PM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

While I am 100 % behind Newt on everything, I give him full marks for standing up the RINO ba*****s that are trying to soft pedal her racist remarks and the other obvious flaws that she has. Her nomination should be withdrawn and every Republican politician should be calling for her to resign NOW. Instead we have dumbos like Sessions(what a disappointment)praising her and letting the WH get away with the BS statement that she “misspoke”, what a crock that is!


22 posted on 05/31/2009 3:44:34 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad
The federal political machine is fully in place.. and has been for a good while..
After all John Mclaim was the republican candidate..

The cabal will release power from their cold dead hands only when that happens..
Until it does... calls/emails are just a distraction..

23 posted on 05/31/2009 3:46:44 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Correction on post #22, when I said "While I am 100 % behind Newt on everything,",I should actually have written,"While I am NOT 100 % behind Newt on everything,".
24 posted on 05/31/2009 3:47:04 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The GOP does have enough votes to stop the nomination. Remember, she needs one REPUBLICAN vote in committee to go to the floor. If Sessions wanted to, he could stop it.


25 posted on 05/31/2009 3:53:06 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

I hope I’m wrong but me thinks this is a political trap. This woman will become a Justice on the Court if the Republicans stick to this race thing, and everything that is said about her that is negative will be used as propaganda by the media to prove that all Republicans are racist.

And while the Republicans get bogged down in defending themselves, the Dems will be passing universal health care and cap and tax. On top of that, the economy will be melting down while we print ourselves into hyperinflation.

After all of this happens, she’ll be sitting on the bench supporting the confiscation of our liberty. Lose, lose, lose... all the way around.

But, like I said, I hope I’m wrong.


26 posted on 05/31/2009 3:55:48 PM PDT by NotSoModerate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

Republicans and other persons of conscience need to shut up and simply vote no. No filibuster, just a no vote.

Let the dems defend the indefensible and the republicans keep their rhetorical powder dry.


27 posted on 05/31/2009 4:02:32 PM PDT by paulycy (BEWARE the LIBERAL/MEDIA Complex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paulycy

If the GOP doesn’t question her racism where will the charge come from for the Dems to defend? She would simply be confirmed without anyone questioning it and nothing there for the Dems to defend.


28 posted on 05/31/2009 4:09:53 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NotSoModerate

Political traps are just a trait of the Newspapers - all left wing... So to say that someone who disagrees with the Democrats is right wing is a common tactic. With today’s left wing media, it has very little meaning...

So, He is right... She is not only left wing but racist if you actually take her comments in context. Unfortunately, that never stopped the left from pursuing their goals...


29 posted on 05/31/2009 4:10:39 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Isabel C.

“...exposing her will help the GOP.”

It may in the long term, but only after the GOP overcomes the substantial negative blowback if they vote her out of committee.

As IsabelC proposed in another post, in addition to not voting for Sotomayor, the Republicans ought to offer up a list of more qualified Hispanic candidates.

To do so would dramatically change the game and put a brighter light on the Dem’s agenda.


30 posted on 05/31/2009 4:20:07 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Socialism - facism is inconsistent with the Constitution and is one of the "domestic enemies".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jla
Gingrich drops skepticism on global warming But he and Kerry differ on solutions

"The standing-room-only debate, staged yesterday in an ornate Senate hearing room, offered an indication that even diehard conservatives like Gingrich, who stepped down as speaker in 1998, are abandoning their skepticism on global warming. ,As recently as two years ago Gingrich ridiculed the notion that humans are causing the earth to warm, but yesterday he said the evidence was "sufficient."

31 posted on 05/31/2009 4:20:11 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
If the GOP doesn’t question her racism where will the charge come from for the Dems to defend?

That's a good, fair question.

Each republican needs to say "I cannot, in good conscience, vote to put a person with racist and provably unconstitutional view on the Supreme Court of the United States." Then shut up.

Let the libs prove the negative in the face of the evidence. Take this "racism" charge to them and right into their face by being silent in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Simply put, take a self-confident, moral stand and vote no - without filibustering - whether we have the votes to kill the nomination or not. That, in my book, is called taking the high road.

32 posted on 05/31/2009 4:23:07 PM PDT by paulycy (BEWARE the LIBERAL/MEDIA Complex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
the repub could block her in the committee vote.
33 posted on 05/31/2009 4:28:05 PM PDT by ncalburt (Read all about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lewisglad

Newt RINO? Global warming moron.


34 posted on 05/31/2009 4:30:18 PM PDT by CARepublicans (www.teamsarah.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NotSoModerate
I hope I’m wrong but me thinks this is a political trap. This woman will become a Justice on the Court if the Republicans stick to this race thing, and everything that is said about her that is negative will be used as propaganda by the media to prove that all Republicans are racist.

Political trap? The Dems have already successfully branded Reps as racists. Even Lindsey Graham and Karl Rove called those who opposed amnesty as racists, bigots, and xenophobes.

The Democrats created the artificial category of “Hispanics” in the 1970s as a way to create another class of victims, which they could imbue with special rights and privileges, including affirmative action and minority business set asides. The result is another minority group that votes Democrat. It doesn’t matter that, according to the Census Bureau, 51 percent of Hispanics self-identify themselves as white.

There is no such thing as an Hispanic race. And Hispanics are not a monolith. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues.

The Republicans need to expose the Democrats as the real racists and bigots who provide people, including newly arrived immigrants, with special rights and privileges based on race, ethnicity, and gender.

35 posted on 05/31/2009 4:33:55 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Newt hit this one out of the ball park. Keep saying the things that need to be said. We need to, like Gen. Washington in the Revolution, keep fighting the delaying action and not give up. We may well be in Valley Forge but from this time will come a glorious victory and a new nation.


36 posted on 05/31/2009 4:41:18 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Energy and the Environment

America will be stronger if it develops coherent technology and market-oriented solutions to environmental conservation and energy consumption. Consider how much better we can do in each field.

It is possible to have a healthy environment and a healthy economy. It is possible to build incentives for a cleaner future. It is possible to have biodiversity and wealthy human beings on the same planet. And it is possible to have free markets, scientific and technological advances, and an even more positive environmental outcome. There is every reason to be optimistic that if we develop smart environmental and biodiversity policies our children and grandchildren will experience an even more pleasant world.

It is clearly possible to combine human progress with biodiversity. There are more trees in Georgia today than there were in 1900 or 1940. The very increase in wealth in America made it possible in 1895 to found the New York Zoological Society (now the Wildlife Conservation Society) and save the American bison from extinction. The application of new technology and new science has cleaned up the air of most American cities (it is far cleaner now than it was twenty years ago even though people are driving more cars more miles).

The greatest dangers to biodiversity on the planet today are poor people cutting down tropical forests for money and killing endangered species for meat. Wealthy people can afford to protect the forests and protect endangered species.

The greatest areas of pollution and toxic wastes on the planet today are the byproducts of the Soviet Empire and a centralized command bureaucracy that was willing to kill the environment to reach production quotas.

Here are a few examples of the kind of science-based, technologically-oriented environmentalism that could improve our quality of life, increase our options, and enhance the natural world.

We have made significant progress in cleaning up places like San Francisco Bay and the Chesapeake but there is much more to be done. Some of it can be accomplished by government’s tapping innovative private clean-up companies.

We must insist that cities meet their obligations in waste cleanup. Atlanta has been a far larger polluter of the Chattahoochee than any private business, yet the federal government has maintained a double standard between what cities and industries are allowed or required to do. Government should be as responsible for running its waste treatment centers professionally and competently as the private sector. The rivers will be cleaner as a result.

We should encourage the kind of public-private partnerships that have enabled the Trust for Public Land, the state of Georgia, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, and the federal government to create environmentally sound land use along the Chattahoochee. It is important for cities, counties, and states to buy parkland when it is cheap and easily available and before population growth overwhelms open space.

The world biodiversity hot spots have been identified. These are places where biologists and botanists have discovered unusually rich concentrations of animals and plants. If the United States challenged Europe and Japan to join it in financing a world biodiversity refuge system and tied foreign aid into the process of maintaining biodiversity, we could probably save a very high percentage of the earth’s biological richness for our children and grandchildren to enjoy, study, and learn from at a surprisingly small cost (trivial compared to what the Left would spend through the Kyoto Treaty).

Kyoto is a bad treaty. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for America. It sets standards that will require massive investments by the United States but virtually no investments by other countries. The Senate was right when it voted unanimously against the treaty. We should insist on revisiting the entire Kyoto process and resolutely reject efforts to force us into an anti-American, environmentally failed treaty.

The United States should support substantial research into climate science, managing the response to climate change, and in developing new non-carbon energy systems. It is astounding to watch people blithely propose trillions of dollars in spending on a topic on which we have failed to spend modest amounts to better understand. To its credit the Bush administration has begun to increase funding on climate research but much more needs to be done. Furthermore, it is astounding to have people focus myopically on carbon as the sole source of climate change. The world’s climate has changed in the past with sudden speed and dramatic impact. Global warming may happen. On the other hand it is possible Europe will experience another ice age. The Norwegian politicians who worry much about global warming (the politically correct thing to do even in a cold country that would demonstrably benefit from a warmer climate) may suddenly find themselves migrating south if a new interim ice age were to happen. This point is politically incorrect but the history and science of climate change is far more complex and uncertain than the politically driven mass hysteria of scientists who sign on to ads about a topic for which they have no scientific proof.

The federal government should establish measurable standards for a healthy environment but allow widespread experimentation in achieving those goals. Too much of the conflict between landowners and federal employees and between cities and states and the federal government are a function of a heavy handed bureaucracy. The lengthy process of environmental planning is made adversarial and expensive beyond reason and should be redesigned to have a collaborative style with the goal of having both development and a healthy environment.

Brownfields (abandoned former industrial sites often with toxic and other wastes that need to be cleaned up) need a new federal law to encourage cities to get them cleaned up. The current system favors litigation over cleanup and has kept thousands of sites in our cities from being cleaned up. The trial lawyers have been winning but the people of the cities have been losing. We need litigation reform and financial encouragement for citizens to clean up the sites. This will help create economic opportunity in our cities, and replace blighted, abandoned areas with new development opportunities.

The Bush initiative on healthy forest management is an important step in the right direction. Forests in particular and national lands in general should be run on sound science and conservation principles rather than on emotional rhetoric designed for political effect. The refusal to manage the forests intelligently led to huge beetle infestations in the southwest that produced sicker and poorer forests. The refusal to clear out dead timber across the west led to fires that were hotter, more intense, and therefore more destructive. The left wing of the environmental movement represents a repudiation of eighty years of sound conservation practice that stemmed from the principles laid down by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. The new healthy forest policies are sound steps in the right direction and should be expanded.

These are just a few examples of how a positive, activist, problem-solving environmentalism could give our children and grandchildren a better world. That goal will be even more rapidly achieved if we make dramatic progress on the energy front.

Energy

A sound American energy policy would focus on four areas: basic research to create a new energy system that has few environmental side effects, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels. To its credit, the Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way, including using public-private partnerships that balance economic costs and environmental gain.

The Bush administration’s investment in developing hydrogen energy resources may be the biggest breakthrough of the next half-century. Hydrogen has the potential to provide energy that has no environmental downside. In one stroke a hydrogen economy would eliminate both air pollution and global warming concerns. Since hydrogen is abundant in the air and water around us, it eliminates both the national security and foreign exchange problems associated with petroleum. Suddenly oil would become a source of petrochemicals and cease to be a source of energy. The relative requirements for oil would shift to making plastics and away from providing fuel. The result would be a lot less reliance on the Middle East and a lot less concern over balance of payments.

A hydrogen economy is probably twenty years away but there seems to be no scientific reason the hydrogen engine cannot be mass-¬produced. General Motors and virtually every other major automobile manufacturer have major programs underway to develop hydrogen energy designs and production. The potential is real that many of the pollution problems of our lifetime will begin to disappear after 2020 or 2025.

Conservation is the second great opportunity in energy. Already the United States has adjusted to earlier oil price increases by becoming a dramatically more efficient user of energy. But companies like Honeywell and Johnson Controls believe we could achieve 30 to 60 percent improvements in energy conservation if our tax policy better encouraged it and if we set the standard by optimizing energy use in government buildings. A tax credit to subsidize energy efficient cars (including a tax credit for turning in old and heavily polluting cars) is another idea we should support.

Renewable resources are gradually evolving to meet their potential: from wind generator farms to solar power to biomass conversion. Continued tax credits and other advantages for renewable resources are a must.

Finally, it is time for an honest debate about drilling and producing in places like Alaska, our national forests, and off the coast of scenic areas. The Left uses scare tactics from a different era to block environmentally sound production of raw materials. Three standards should break through this deadlock. First, scientists of impeccable background should help set the standards for sustaining the environment in sensitive areas, and any company entering the areas should be bonded to meet those standards. Second, the public should be informed about new methods of production that can meet the environmental standards, and any development should be only with those new methods. Third, a percentage of the revenues from resources generated in environmentally sensitive areas should be dedicated to environmental activities including biodiversity sustainment, land acquisition, and environmental cleanups in places where there are no private resources that can be used to clean up past problems.

With these kinds of investments we can have an energy strategy that meets our economic and environmental needs, and a generation from now we can be a healthier and wealthier country that is less reliant on foreign sources of energy.

Source: Newt.org

37 posted on 05/31/2009 4:42:51 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

Agreed...aren’t there any real men left in the party? Only Palin appears to be such.

Rush doesn’t want to be president, but he may end up having to run due to nothing but panywaists in the party.

Our side are such dorks that they still think they have to make the media like them.


38 posted on 05/31/2009 5:25:57 PM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Keep your head up and keep moving forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NotSoModerate
everything that is said about her that is negative will be used as propaganda by the media to prove that all Republicans are racist.

So you care about what the left thinks? And they will hug us and love us if we don't attack?

You are correct that it is a trap for any conservative that pretends to give a rat's pointy tail about what leftists think.

/johnny

39 posted on 05/31/2009 5:27:12 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (God Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jla
Just as Sotomayor is responsibile for what she said, Newt said what he said at the debate with Kerry.

Transcript:

KERRY: I’m excited to hear you talk about the urgency — I really am. And given that — albeit you still sort of have a different approach — what would you say to Sen. Inhofe and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science? What’s your message to them here today?

GINGRICH: My message I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.

KERRY: And to it urgently — and now…

GINGRICH: And do it urgently. Yes.

If I can, let me explain partly why this is a very challenging thing to do if you’re a conservative. For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore, if you’re a conservative, the minute you start hearing these arguments, you know what’s coming next: which is bigger government and higher taxes.

So even though it may be the right thing to do, you end up fighting it because you don’t want big government and higher taxes. And so you end up in these kinds of cycles. And part of the reason I was delighted to accept this invitation and I’m delighted to be here with Sen. Kerry is I think there has to be a if you will a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say alright here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.

40 posted on 05/31/2009 5:38:31 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt

No way is this going to be killed in Committee, even if all of the GOP Senators vote against letting it go to the floor.


41 posted on 05/31/2009 5:57:24 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NotSoModerate
If the GOP cannot stop (or at least mount a concerted effort to stop) an obvious racist like Sotomayor, what chance do they have of stopping universal health care? What chance do they have of stopping cap and trade? The only thing the Marxists have to do is scream racism, even if in an Orwellian manner, and the GOP will run like castrated rabbits.
42 posted on 05/31/2009 6:22:34 PM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jla

It pains me to diss Newt. I believe he is underappreciated, even by conservatives. He is both a tactical and strategic thinker, unusual in politics at all, and even more so in the conservative movement. All while still holding onto core principles.

You won’t see me joining the chorus of those here who shout “RINO Newt.” I have too much respect for him.

Having said all that....he’s simply sold out the conservative movement on this issue in return for some passing kindness from Time Magazine and the mainstream media.

It’s understandable, given all the abuse he’s had to take at their hands. The temptation to be portrayed as something other than an ogre by these people is doubtless very strong.

But it still makes me sad.

Hank


43 posted on 05/31/2009 6:27:39 PM PDT by County Agent Hank Kimball (Eat Hooterville Rutabagas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

We have to get this stuff out to the public.

the Rinos have to know we are going to make them pay a price. If the RINOs think 2008 was bad, just wait for 2010.

RINO Crist is counting on a docile primary.

Angry voters don’t miss elections.


44 posted on 05/31/2009 6:29:24 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: paulycy

If we have the votes to stop this Marxist nominee we should stop it, whether by voting no or by filibuster. Taking the high road with Marxists only leads to passive and humiliating defeat.


45 posted on 05/31/2009 6:35:30 PM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; MBB1984
So you care about what the left thinks? And they will hug us and love us if we don't attack?

I guess my point is this is a losing cause, fighting her based on race. Kamikaze missions are fine as long as you get something out of it. But conservatives will get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out of fighting her nomination based on race. Because in the end she will get that seat if the entire battle is about race.

On the other hand, if conservatives were to use her nomination as a way to defeat Obama's policies- then I'd say that's a fight worth fighting. Conservatives should force her to defend Obama's policies on everything from Guantanamo to cap and tax.

That's my opinion. But maybe you guys are right and I'm wrong.

46 posted on 05/31/2009 6:37:12 PM PDT by NotSoModerate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: exist

I was pretty sickened to see Jeff Sessions out there praising her.
________________________________________________

I’m done with him, too. Come election time....when their time is up....I shall be voting Sessions and Shelby OUT.


47 posted on 05/31/2009 6:41:46 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Obama. Clear and Pres__ent Danger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
Taking the high road with Marxists only leads to passive and humiliating defeat.

And it ends in an mass unmarked grave with a bullet in the back of the head. But fools never learn, do they?.

48 posted on 05/31/2009 6:45:18 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NotSoModerate
Disclosure. I'm white. The woman I love is not.

Hiding from the race issue doesn't make it go away. Bringing people together, and building things... that's a different story.

I wasn't saying attack on her race, but her racism. Pull the racist card on her. She is. Denying it doesn't fix it. The facts speak for themselves.

Speaking truth to power is not a kamikaze mission. But it may get you killed, in the press. You know... the lame stream media that we've been having Dinosaur Media Watch death alerts about...

Don't be afraid. Pile on.

/johnny

49 posted on 05/31/2009 6:46:57 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (God Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

I agree, but I would put Sanford with Palin as one who stands up for principles, regardless of the cost. You may prefer one or the other. But if its down to those two, I think we’re in pretty good shape either way.


50 posted on 05/31/2009 7:22:47 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson