Sotomayor “Wise Latina” Comment NOT An Aberration

Obama and his men have tried to spin Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment, namely . . .

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.

. . . as a poor choice of words that she would say differently if she had a do-over.

There is a slight problem with that, um, explanation. It turns out she has said the same thing again and again and again. If it is a poor choice of words, it is a choice she has made repeatedly.

By the way, a partial correction of an earlier entry is in order. Sotomayor is not now a member of La Raza (“The Race”). She was a member from 1998 to 2004. . . which is kinda like saying someone used to be a member of the KKK. But anyway, no racism to see here. Move along.

Guns and God: Piece Be With You!

Now this is my kind of church!

A Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.

New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

Here’s more info if you want to go. Now the guns can’t be loaded, which is a shame. It would add a nice touch to fire off a few rounds during key parts of the service or as an emphatic way to say “Amen!”

I think an Anglican church should try this. Instead of ringing bells at the Sanctus and consecration . . .

-----

Fire off a round for Hot Air.

Democrats Kill Efforts to Prevent Vote Fraud

Here in Texas, Republicans in the Legislature tried to combat vote fraud with a reasonable Voter ID bill. But Democrats so wanted to leave a door open for vote fraud that they brought the whole legislative session to close to a standstill in order to stop Voter ID.

But who knows if the U. S. Justice Department of Eric Holder and Obama would have allowed Voter ID to go forward even if it passed. For they have killed Georgia’s voter verification efforts to ensure only citizens register to vote. Obama wants to get those illegal alien votes, don’t you know.

Remember the Democrat Party platform itself opposes Voter ID laws. It’s not for nothing that I’ve dubbed it The Party of Vote Fraud.

ACNA Disagreement Over Historic Episcopate

I am disappointed to see there is dissent within the Anglican Church in North America over language in the proposed constitution affirming the historic episcopate, at least enough dissent that Bishop John Rodgers thought it necessary to address it. The offending language is the following:

We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.

But as Matt+ Kennedy points out, this clause does not require an Anglo Catholic reading.

Still, there are some evangelicals unhappy about the language.

I’m hesitant to say much because I do not wish to increase the disagreement. And I am confident most ACNA evangelicals can and will approve of this language. However, some ACNA evangelicals would do well to ask themselves if they really want to be Anglican. Anglicans generally do think bishops are Pretty Important after all.

And Anglicans are not all a bunch of low church evangelicals. Orthodox Anglicans range from low churchers that flinch at the mention of Mary to Anglo-Catholics floating on clouds of incense – and that’s how it should be because that is what Christ’s church looks like.

So our constitution should reflect that and be a document both evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics can live with. And the proposed constitution does that well. It should not be a document that imposes one party’s viewpoint on the whole church. Nor should the constitution be so dumbed down that it can barely bring itself to affirm the historic Episcopate!

We are the Anglican Church in North America after all.

Having said all that, this suggestion might be a good resolution.

Double Standards and Sotomayor

As Mona Charen well notes, the vetting of Sonia Sotomayor and past judicial nominees reveals a number of double standards. Like Ms. Charen, I doubt Sotomayor is a racist. However . . .

If a white male nominee had been discovered to have said something similar -- that he was better situated to judge due to his background and life experiences than a Latina woman -- he would be cashiered so fast as to induce whiplash.

Gosh, you think?

And Sotomayor, with her past statements and current associations, particularly her membership in La Raza (i.e. “The Race”), she has far more marks of racism than any number of past white male nominees attacked on the pretense of supposed racism. Charen reviews the Charles Pickering episode as one despicable example of such Democrat double standards and outright slander:

. . . Judge Pickering had been a friend to civil rights throughout his career. To its credit, the New York Times actually quoted longtime associates of the judge and members of the black community in Pickering's hometown who "overwhelmingly support his nomination . . . and admire his efforts at racial reconciliation." The black chairman of the city council told the Times, "I can't believe the man they're describing in Washington is the same one I've known for years." They recalled that as a young prosecutor in 1967, Pickering had endangered his career (and perhaps more) by testifying in court against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He was known for hiring black staffers at a time when few white Mississippians did. Pickering encouraged the chancellor of University of Mississippi to form the Institute for Racial Reconciliation and served on its board for many years. . . .

Yet, without blushing, John Kerry transmogrified Judge Pickering into "a forceful advocate for a cross-burner."

Yet these same Democrats are about to give a pass to the Supreme Court to a woman who openly thinks she can make better decisions than a white male because she is a Latina.

Second Thoughts on Opposition to Sotomayor

Last week I counseled Republicans to be very careful about opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

I’m having second thoughts about that.

Of course, I don’t think Republicans should be reckless or nasty in opposing her, especially when the “mainstream” news media is so eager to lie twist the words of those in opposition.

But it has become clear that, even if she is not a racist as Rush Limbaugh has proclaimed or a sexist, her own words make it clear she cannot and should not be trusted to be fair in matters where race or gender crops up.

She said what she meant, and she meant what she said: "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."
No white nominee could get away with that statement's corollary in which a wise white man comes to better conclusions that a Latina. Nor should he.


And that fact is already resonating to the point where Obama has felt compelled to spin it. People don’t like racism no matter where it comes from, and Obama knows it.

I am also alarmed by her membership in La Raza. That’s Spanish for “The Race”, people. And, yes, that organization is as racist as it sounds. What if a white nominee belonged to a white power group called “The Race”?

So here we have the irony of a Black president appointing a Supreme Court justice based on race and gender. And that Latina nominee has shown the disposition to be racially biased and strengthen the racial spoils racket just after the election of said President has blown away the need for it.

The irony of that is already sinking in and Republicans should run with that. Obama’s nomination is brazen and certainly not “post-racial”, and, although he will succeed in getting her on the court, it should be opposed, and Obama should be made to pay a political price.

And, thanks to Sotomayor’s own words and choices, Obama can be made to pay a political price.

Two Thoughts on the Murder of George Tiller

Actually I have three thoughts. To get the first one out of the way, the murder of George Tiller is wrong. As evil as Tiller’s mass late-term abortions were, killing him was wrong.

Second, this killing is the sort of thing that subverting constitutional democracy invites. One reason we have our constitutional democracy is so that heated issues can be dealt with by political means. We want to resolve issues like abortion by the ballot box and by the deliberation by those we elect, not by the gun.

But when those democratic means are cut off by unconstitutional judicial fiat, as in the case of elective abortion, the motivation to resort to the gun increases. And a few unstable people likely will do so. It is no coincidence that anti-abortion violence increased after Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992. Hope to combat abortion by democratic means was dashed. So a few people felt compelled to resort to violent means.

I’m not inside the head of the man who killed Tiller. And one should not extrapolate too much from one incident. But if you arbitrarily cut off the constitutional democratic process on a heated issue as the Supreme Court has on abortion, then violence is a likely outcome. And the election of Obama certainly reduces hope of overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the abortion issue to the people and their representatives, making this another likely time for violence.

Third, it is right that pro-lifers are almost unanimously condemning the murder of Tiller. But as for those who defend elective late-term abortions, allow me to save them the trouble. If you defend elective late-term abortions, you have less moral judgement than a dog. Any outrage from you over Tiller’s killing or over just about anything is worth less than said dog’s bark. So you need not bother.

You’re welcome.