The fact that progressives consistently make false accusations of racism when conservatives criticize the President has rendered the charge of racism meaningless and a joke. That is unfortunate for the times when racism actually occurs.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
In Barack Obama's Own Words: Anti-White Rhetoric - Racist?
Does Obama sound just a little obsessed with Black America or blacks? What happened to Martin Luther King Jr's colorless America? Is this possible when the likes of Obama and Sharpton incessantly focus on race and make race *the* issue and not the content of the person's character?
Violence and Racism Revealed at the 'Restoring Sanity' Rally
The Left consistently tries to portray Tea Party members as a bunch of violent racists yet there has been no evidence backing up their false allegations. Here is proof of liberals acting out with violence, being racist, and expressing rage.
Here is Steven Crowder revealing violence at the 'Restoring Sanity' rally.
Racism and rage revealed in this video:
Here is Steven Crowder revealing violence at the 'Restoring Sanity' rally.
Racism and rage revealed in this video:
Cardinal George (Catholic Church) Honors Propagator of Anti-White Hate Speech -- Fr. Pfleger WTH????
I guess the Catholic Church is now giving awards to priests who propagate anti-white hate speech all in the name of "social justice". I am ticked- SOOOO TICKED!!! - at this shocking revelation. This is beyond ludicrous. Father Pfleger is receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award for "dismantling racism". This is such a farce. I think Cardinal George and the rest of the Catholic Lefties have had some demonic delusional curse casted upon them for them to give this particular type of award to a race baiting priest. Father Pfleger has been seen in church standing side-by-side Rev. Jeremiah Wright not only listening but in fact celebrating, and spewing both anti-American and anti-white hate speech. The leftist loons within the Catholic Church have distorted the meaning of social justice to mean anything that benefits minorities at any cost- regardless of the cost to anyone else or theft of money of hard working Americans (spread the wealth) if it benefits minorities then its okay because whitey deserves this maniacal twisted version of retribution. Father Pfleger is propagating this perversion of social justice even though none of the African Americans living in America today ( or other minorities) have been slaves or, been subject to increased hardships due to the actions of others any moreso than whites today, nor has there been an increased amount of prejudice against minorities anymore than whites today. These people are trying to wrongly justify propagating white racism from minorities to get even for the past. Is that really exemplifying what Jesus Christ would have wanted? Jesus did not promote hate. He promoted love. He promoted turning the other cheek and not revenge. Does this man have any business being a priest? Should he be given an ultamatum to stop spewing vitriolic racist hatre speech, misleading Catholics, and to stop causing scandal or be defrocked?
Here is Father Pfleger spewing hate:
Here is Father Pfleger spewing hate:
Morgan Freeman on Black History Month
Morgan Freeman has got it right. He has a fabulous idea on how to end racism. Stop dwelling on a person's race. Stop increasing the divide by focusing on a person's race. We are all Americans.
H/T goes to TOTUS
2010 Census: Is the Use of the Word Negro, Racist or Harmless?
But, on the other hand, others believe differently, like Stanley Crouch in his article states:
"As the Census Bureau begins embedding a test in the 2010 census that "will measure the effect of removing the term 'Negro' on reports about a person's racial identity," my preference is not with those who either feel insulted or think "Negro" outdated and derogatory. That actually applies to another N-word.
As a writer, I find the term African-American unwieldy. I use terms like Negro, black, and am sometimes tempted to use colored because that range of skin tones is so undeniably epic. All of them are no more than words, but there is something far from backward about the sound of Negro and the magnificent people who used that word to describe themselves. They gave it majesty; they made it luminous. They inspired, organized and led what amounted to our most recent civil war. They welcomed all comers as they went about removing the teeth from the Grand Dragons of Southern racism."
"Of course, hip hop has demeaned millions for the making of millions and used it at every chance. But that's another story. "
So, is the word Negro a word of praise and inspiration that has been twisted over the years to seem like it has a racist connotation? Or is the word really racist?
Is the word Negro racist or harmless?
The Democratic Party's Legacy of Racism: Interested in a Discussion on Racism?
Would anyone be interested in a discussion on race relations within both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? Earlier this week, I posted this article called, The Democratic Party, Racism, & The Inferiority Complex and Malcolm from Diversity Ink offered to repost my article since he and other blogsters look for viewpoints that differ from his. I think understanding why others have differing viewpoints is a great idea! Please go over to Macolm's site and join in the discussion. Malcolm has a very reasonable comment policy. Please view it here. I am very excited to join in on the discussion!!!
I recently discovered another article on the Democratic Party and racism, written in 2002. The article is called:
The Democratic Party's legacy of racism:
Under pressure from fellow Republicans, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments he made earlier in the month. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.
Of course, Democrats have used the Lott affair to pillory the Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the Republican Party’s inherent racism. "Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are," Senator Daschle told CNN. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.
It’s about time that Republicans quit pussy-footing around on the issue of race. They need to point out that in both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, they need to stress that on the issues that most affect African-Americans today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.
Republicans can begin by observing that their Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln. He himself recurred to the principles of the American Founding, specifically the Declaration of Independence, so we can say that the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. In essence these principles hold that the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
We should remember that the Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a "positive good." While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.
Calhoun’s fundamental enterprise was to defend the institution of slavery. To do so, he first had to overturn the principles of the American Founding. He started with the Declaration of Independence, arguing that "[the proposition ’all men are created equal’] as now understood, has become the most false and dangerous of all political errors....We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of independence." Thus Calhoun transformed the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the Party of Slavery.
The most liberal position among ante-bellum Democrats regarding slavery was that slavery was an issue that should be decided by popular vote. For example, Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the 1858 Illinois senate race and the 1860 presidential campaign, advocated "popular sovereignty." He defended the right of the people in the territories to outlaw slavery, but also defended the right of Southerners to own slaves and transport them to the new territories.
The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction.
Democrats defeated Reconstruction in the end and on its ruins created Jim Crow. Democratic liberalism did not extend to issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the quintessential "liberal racist," a species of Democrat that later included the likes of William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.
As the incomparable Ann Coulter has observed, when Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican.
Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.
Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the "n" word on national TV?
"Ah, but this is all in the past," say the Democrats. "Now we push a pro-African-American agenda." But the reality differs significantly from the claim.
Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and "in-kind" support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.
"Affirmative action" has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a "color-blind society" that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as "Uncle Toms" of "Oreos" by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.
H/T goes to Mackubin T. Owens at the Ashbrook Center
I recently discovered another article on the Democratic Party and racism, written in 2002. The article is called:
The Democratic Party's legacy of racism:
Under pressure from fellow Republicans, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments he made earlier in the month. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.
Of course, Democrats have used the Lott affair to pillory the Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the Republican Party’s inherent racism. "Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are," Senator Daschle told CNN. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.
It’s about time that Republicans quit pussy-footing around on the issue of race. They need to point out that in both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, they need to stress that on the issues that most affect African-Americans today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.
Republicans can begin by observing that their Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln. He himself recurred to the principles of the American Founding, specifically the Declaration of Independence, so we can say that the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. In essence these principles hold that the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
We should remember that the Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a "positive good." While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.
Calhoun’s fundamental enterprise was to defend the institution of slavery. To do so, he first had to overturn the principles of the American Founding. He started with the Declaration of Independence, arguing that "[the proposition ’all men are created equal’] as now understood, has become the most false and dangerous of all political errors....We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of independence." Thus Calhoun transformed the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the Party of Slavery.
The most liberal position among ante-bellum Democrats regarding slavery was that slavery was an issue that should be decided by popular vote. For example, Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the 1858 Illinois senate race and the 1860 presidential campaign, advocated "popular sovereignty." He defended the right of the people in the territories to outlaw slavery, but also defended the right of Southerners to own slaves and transport them to the new territories.
The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction.
Democrats defeated Reconstruction in the end and on its ruins created Jim Crow. Democratic liberalism did not extend to issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the quintessential "liberal racist," a species of Democrat that later included the likes of William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.
As the incomparable Ann Coulter has observed, when Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican.
Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.
Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the "n" word on national TV?
"Ah, but this is all in the past," say the Democrats. "Now we push a pro-African-American agenda." But the reality differs significantly from the claim.
Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and "in-kind" support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.
"Affirmative action" has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a "color-blind society" that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as "Uncle Toms" of "Oreos" by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.
H/T goes to Mackubin T. Owens at the Ashbrook Center
The Democratic Party, Racism & The Inferiority Complex
It seems to me that the Democrats have forced African-Americans and other minorities to be reliant on the government and thus beholden to the Democratic Party and their policies as well. The Democrats have forced minorities into the mindset that they are weak, have little opportunity, deserve and need more help, and thus need the Demoratic Party to survive. The Democratic Party have impressed upon minorities and drilled it into their minds that they are inferior and as a result I believe that minorities suffer from an inferiority complex. "Inferiority complex is a term used to describe people who compensate for feelings of inferiority (feeling like they're less than other people, not as good as others, worthless, etc.) by acting ways that make them appear superior. They do this because controlling others may help them feel less personally inadequate."
I believe that the Democratic Party wants to keep minorities poor so that they stay dependent on the government social programs which the Democrats have expanded over the years, thus keeping minorities beholden to them and therefore shoring up their base. I believe that over the last 50-75 years the the Democratic Party has created its own "Democratic Plantation." Why hasn't the income desparity between minorities and caucasians decreased substantially over the past 50 years? Why hasn't the economic situations of minorities improved? If the Democrats were actually helping minorities than why are there still so many problems within minority communities today? Is it because the Democrats are taking advantage of minorities and taking their votes for granted?
Martin Luther King Jr. did not want African-Americans to be treated as if they were "special" or "different", but rather as EQUAL human beings and EQUAL Americans. He wanted African-Americans to be freed from the bondage of the chains. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted people of all races to join hands right next to each other as sisters and brothers. But, are African-Americans really free in a more sociological sense today? It seems to me that the Democrats are keeping African Americans bound by "chains", the chains of pverty. Is the Democratic Party aiding African-Americans so that they can thrive and achieve their maximum potential? I don't think so. Or, we would see far less poverty and violence within minority communities.
Conservatives/Republicans do help minorities and want to continue helping minorities but we also want to help them succeed in life instead of being dependent on the government for money. We want to help everyone achieve a sustainable income so that every family can support themselves and not rely on the government for funds. This gives people a sense of pride and accomplishment. But, maybe conservatives need to be a little bit more proactive in courting the African-American vote? Maybe, we should help them understand history, help them to understand that we really do want to help them, and that we don't want to keep them beholden to us for funds but rather in believing in our ideals and in our common sense conservative ideology. We are ALL Americans and don't ascribe to a color.
Here is a great article called Racist Democrats Vs. Colorblind Republicans.
Here is a video of Democrats racist statements
Here is Martin Luther King Jr's, I Have A Dream Speech
Ricci Firefighter Ruling Overturned
Sotomayor rebuked by would-be colleagues
The Supreme Court Justices have just made a ruling in favor of the white firefighters in Bias Case. The Supreme Court ruled that in New Haven Conn. were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. This means that the Supreme Court reversed a decision that Sonia Sotomayor, a Supreme Court nominee, endorsed as an appeals coourt judge.
This was a case of racism pure and simple. There have been absolutely NO firefighters promoted since the firefighters having taken the exam, which was for consideration of promotion in the New Haven Fire Department. These white firefighters were not considered for promotion, after passing the exam with flying colors, because there were no African Americans that had good enough results on the exam to be eligible for promotion.This is an exam that was approved for ALL people coming from various ethnic backgrounds to take by the city of New Haven. Then, afterward New Haven wants to say that the exam showed favoritism towards whites, but only after the exam results were known-that no African Americans were eligible for promotion at the firehouse.
Since the Supreme Court ruled in this case that the white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on race, does that show some indication that Sotomayor is a racist? Or at least unjustly favors minorities over whites? Will this cause Sotomayor to have any problems with her upcoming Supreme Court hearings? Now it is the law of the land that the Ricci Case was a case of reverse racism.
Sotomayor:"Physiological Differences" ?!? It Looks A Lot Like Racism
Sonia Sotomayor gave this speech at a University of California at Berkeley Law School Raising the Bar Symposium. The symposium was specifically called, "The Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."
These are Judge Sotomayor‘s words in complete context. “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.”
Sotomayor’s words in context are clearly much worse than the one line that was being reported by news networks. According to this statement there are implications that Sotomayor thinks that whether a Latina woman had experience or not, because of the inherent physiological and cultural differences that a Latina woman has, that would automatically make her decisions better than a white male’s decisions. This statement presents major problems with how this judicial philosophy would effect her judicial decisions. Would her decisions always favor a Latina woman or a woman with inherent physiological and cultural characteristics? If a white man had the reverse of this statement than his nomination would have been dead in the water? Is there a double standard in our society? Does society today allow for reverse discrimination? Does society by allowing or accepting reverse discrimination think that two wrongs make a right? Citizens’ in the United States should not be advocating for any form of racism. Racism is inherently wrong no matter who it is directed toward.
Here are 3 links regarding Sotomayor's speech: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
http://foundry.heritage.org/2009/05/28/dont-forget-sotomayors-inherent-physiological-or-cultural-differences/
http://foundry.heritage.org/2009/05/27/a-troubling-decision-a-troubling-speech-and-a-troubling-nomination/
These are Judge Sotomayor‘s words in complete context. “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.”
Sotomayor’s words in context are clearly much worse than the one line that was being reported by news networks. According to this statement there are implications that Sotomayor thinks that whether a Latina woman had experience or not, because of the inherent physiological and cultural differences that a Latina woman has, that would automatically make her decisions better than a white male’s decisions. This statement presents major problems with how this judicial philosophy would effect her judicial decisions. Would her decisions always favor a Latina woman or a woman with inherent physiological and cultural characteristics? If a white man had the reverse of this statement than his nomination would have been dead in the water? Is there a double standard in our society? Does society today allow for reverse discrimination? Does society by allowing or accepting reverse discrimination think that two wrongs make a right? Citizens’ in the United States should not be advocating for any form of racism. Racism is inherently wrong no matter who it is directed toward.
Here are 3 links regarding Sotomayor's speech: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
http://foundry.heritage.org/2009/05/28/dont-forget-sotomayors-inherent-physiological-or-cultural-differences/
http://foundry.heritage.org/2009/05/27/a-troubling-decision-a-troubling-speech-and-a-troubling-nomination/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
