Sotomayor is a member of La Raza a group which promotes illegal aliens obtaining drivers' licenses, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local or state police. Does Sotomayor in essence believe it is okay for illegal aliens to sneak across the border and enter the U.S., when it is against our laws for them to do so? How could this affect her court rulings or decisions? Will the U.S. accept a globalist philosophy which would promote the creation of a union that would include Canada, U.S., Mexico, and Central America? Do you believe that the United States should embrace globalism?
From a Catholic standpoint, How much of an obligation do we have to allow illegal aliens to cross the border into the U.S. so that can better their lives? Should we allow illegal aliens to break the law so that they can improve their lives financially? Why is it okay for other nations to have enforcable borders but when the U.S. wants to enforce its own borders it is considered unjust?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Has Kim Jong-il crossed the line of reason? And a Funny video
Do you think that Kim Jong-il in North Korea is beyond the state of reason? Do you think that he is bluffing? Do you there needs to be another U.N. sanction? Will a U.N. sanction deter Kim Jong-il from continuing his nuclear missile program? Is Kim Jong-il a madman? Can a madman be reasoned with?
If Kim Jong-il is a madman I would say that he cannot be reasoned with.
I say it is time for Operation KILL IL.
Here is a funny video of Kim Jong-il and Hans Blix in Team America World Police.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Should Republicans try to block Sotomayors Nomination?
Today, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Would it be wise for Republicans to oppose her nomination and try and block her from being approved by the Senate?
Since Sotomayor is a Latina woman, does the GOP want to offend the Latino community by opposing her nomination? On the other hand, I have found out that she is a liberal, activist judge that wants to make policy from the bench. Should GOP fight the nomination and espouse their conservative values? Republicans traditionally believe in a strict constructionist approach to Judges with regard on how they interpret the Constitution. Judge Sotomayor clearly would do the exact opposite of what Republicans believe in how a good Justice would handle court decisions on the bench.
In 2005, Judge Sotomayor one example regarding that the Courts proper place is "where policy is made."
In a videotaped statement, she goes on to say, “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. O.K. I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm — you know."
Below, this statement shows an example of Judge Sotamayor agreeing with the President's assesment of how a judge should make court decisions.
"It's exactly what the president has talked about. He likes that. He thinks that liberal judges are so smart and so enlightened and have such great instincts about what policy should be that they should be making the decisions about policy for the rest of us."
We do not yet know exactly what her postion is on abortion. I have searched extensively and it seems no one knows for sure what her position is regarding the abortion issue. Some articles written suspect she is in favor of the Roe V. Wade decision. But, then there are decisions on the bench that she clearly sided with Pro-Life groups based on the law.
Judge Sotamayor was appointed to the federal District Court in 1991 by George H.W. Bush , a Republican President. Does this make her a truly bi-partisan choice? Was President George H.W. Bush really a conservative? President Clinton appointed Sotomayor to Court of Appeals in 1998.
Sotomayor stated, "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Should this influence her court decisions?
Then, here is Sotomayor's stating that a "wise Latina woman" makes better judicial decisions than a white man because of the richness of her experience. Is this statement both sexist and racist?
MY OPINION: I believe that Republicans should demonstrate to Democrats just how extreme and left-wing Sotomayor is regarding her opinions both in court and out of court. I believe that the GOP should espouse their conservative views and their concern on how how she is clearly not a moderate. I believe that judges should adhere to the strict constructionist interpretation of laws according to the Constitution. I am against her nomination based on her being an activist judge, who clearly believes she has the right to make laws according to her liberal beliefs.
Crossposted to:http://teresamerica.blogtownhall.com/
Since Sotomayor is a Latina woman, does the GOP want to offend the Latino community by opposing her nomination? On the other hand, I have found out that she is a liberal, activist judge that wants to make policy from the bench. Should GOP fight the nomination and espouse their conservative values? Republicans traditionally believe in a strict constructionist approach to Judges with regard on how they interpret the Constitution. Judge Sotomayor clearly would do the exact opposite of what Republicans believe in how a good Justice would handle court decisions on the bench.
In 2005, Judge Sotomayor one example regarding that the Courts proper place is "where policy is made."
In a videotaped statement, she goes on to say, “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. O.K. I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm — you know."
Below, this statement shows an example of Judge Sotamayor agreeing with the President's assesment of how a judge should make court decisions.
"It's exactly what the president has talked about. He likes that. He thinks that liberal judges are so smart and so enlightened and have such great instincts about what policy should be that they should be making the decisions about policy for the rest of us."
We do not yet know exactly what her postion is on abortion. I have searched extensively and it seems no one knows for sure what her position is regarding the abortion issue. Some articles written suspect she is in favor of the Roe V. Wade decision. But, then there are decisions on the bench that she clearly sided with Pro-Life groups based on the law.
Judge Sotamayor was appointed to the federal District Court in 1991 by George H.W. Bush , a Republican President. Does this make her a truly bi-partisan choice? Was President George H.W. Bush really a conservative? President Clinton appointed Sotomayor to Court of Appeals in 1998.
Sotomayor stated, "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Should this influence her court decisions?
Then, here is Sotomayor's stating that a "wise Latina woman" makes better judicial decisions than a white man because of the richness of her experience. Is this statement both sexist and racist?
MY OPINION: I believe that Republicans should demonstrate to Democrats just how extreme and left-wing Sotomayor is regarding her opinions both in court and out of court. I believe that the GOP should espouse their conservative views and their concern on how how she is clearly not a moderate. I believe that judges should adhere to the strict constructionist interpretation of laws according to the Constitution. I am against her nomination based on her being an activist judge, who clearly believes she has the right to make laws according to her liberal beliefs.
Crossposted to:http://teresamerica.blogtownhall.com/
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Regarding National Security:Obama Blames and Cheney Fires Back
While President Obama claims that he wants to move forward and look to the future he is continually focusing on the past and playing the blame game. Obama has an obsession of pointing out how he wants to distance and differentiate himself from Bush administration policies. At every possible chance Pres.Obama criticizes the Bush administration and loves making a theatrical scene while promoting himself at the same time. Today, Dick Cheney took the opportunity to defend the Bush administration foreign policy decisions. Cheney even had the courage to challenge President Obama on much of his foreign policy rhetoric and claimed that Obama is putting politics before national security.
Cheney gave a very moving speech with an account of where he was and how he was touched and changed on September 11,2001. Cheney expressed how he and others' in the Bush administration realized that they had an obligation to protect Americans and prevent another terrorist attack from happening on U.S. soil again.
Cheney said:
"Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad...and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place."
As many Americans look back and ponder which of the Bush foreign policies including enhanced interrogation techniques worked or didn't work, whether they were justified or not, and whether any of these techniques constitute torture or not; we as Americans while in deep thought must remember the great threat Americans faced on Sept.11,2001.
I believe unless a person has actually has been in President Bush's shoes, or Cheney's shoes in having to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, in which these two officials knew that they had to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, a person would not know for sure exactly how they would have reacted being given the chance to be in that same exact situation. I believe No person has the right to judge the Bush administration in that regard. Even President Obama was not acting there as commander-in-chief on that tragic day, so how can he really know how he would have reacted had it actually been him who was commander-in-chief on that tragic day?
What gives a person the moral authority to judge others' when we have no idea what the "true" intentions of our commander-in-Chief consisted of after 9/11 happened? I believe Bush's interests were in acting for the good of the country in order to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. So, I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of judging him and others in the Bush administration harshly.
Yesterday, Obama said that the United States reacted out of fear. I know for me, when 9/11 happened that brought fear to the forefront. Were you afraid after 9/11 happened? I think fear in that circumstance was the most natural response a person could have had. As a United States citizen I feared that another attack would happen on U.S. soil. In reaction to this real, imminent and grave threat against the United States the Bush administration felt the need to stop the terrorists over in the mideast before the terrorists entered the United States.
For a President who wants to distance himself as much as possible from the previous administration, Obama, contrary to his mantra, has adopted many of Bush's foreign policy positions. He has adopted re-instating military tribunals, The Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, Iraq and Guantanomo just to name a few. I encourage you to read an article By Charles Krauthammer which includes more information on this topic.
President Obama even reserves the right to use or request the use of these enhaned interrogation techniques when necessary for the safety of our country. If he truly categorically rejects the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and believes that the Bush administration was taking the low road than why is he reserving the right to make use of these very same techniques?
I think that former President Bush and his administration deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they loved the United States so much as to want to do everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. That is exactly what happened for the past 7 or so years. I just am thankful that President Obama is adopting many of the same policies of the Bush administration. I say to everyone, let us hope and pray that all things necessary are enacted from henceforth in order to prevent another future terrorist attack.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on
Cheney gave a very moving speech with an account of where he was and how he was touched and changed on September 11,2001. Cheney expressed how he and others' in the Bush administration realized that they had an obligation to protect Americans and prevent another terrorist attack from happening on U.S. soil again.
Cheney said:
"Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad...and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place."
As many Americans look back and ponder which of the Bush foreign policies including enhanced interrogation techniques worked or didn't work, whether they were justified or not, and whether any of these techniques constitute torture or not; we as Americans while in deep thought must remember the great threat Americans faced on Sept.11,2001.
I believe unless a person has actually has been in President Bush's shoes, or Cheney's shoes in having to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, in which these two officials knew that they had to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, a person would not know for sure exactly how they would have reacted being given the chance to be in that same exact situation. I believe No person has the right to judge the Bush administration in that regard. Even President Obama was not acting there as commander-in-chief on that tragic day, so how can he really know how he would have reacted had it actually been him who was commander-in-chief on that tragic day?
What gives a person the moral authority to judge others' when we have no idea what the "true" intentions of our commander-in-Chief consisted of after 9/11 happened? I believe Bush's interests were in acting for the good of the country in order to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. So, I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of judging him and others in the Bush administration harshly.
Yesterday, Obama said that the United States reacted out of fear. I know for me, when 9/11 happened that brought fear to the forefront. Were you afraid after 9/11 happened? I think fear in that circumstance was the most natural response a person could have had. As a United States citizen I feared that another attack would happen on U.S. soil. In reaction to this real, imminent and grave threat against the United States the Bush administration felt the need to stop the terrorists over in the mideast before the terrorists entered the United States.
For a President who wants to distance himself as much as possible from the previous administration, Obama, contrary to his mantra, has adopted many of Bush's foreign policy positions. He has adopted re-instating military tribunals, The Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, Iraq and Guantanomo just to name a few. I encourage you to read an article By Charles Krauthammer which includes more information on this topic.
President Obama even reserves the right to use or request the use of these enhaned interrogation techniques when necessary for the safety of our country. If he truly categorically rejects the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and believes that the Bush administration was taking the low road than why is he reserving the right to make use of these very same techniques?
I think that former President Bush and his administration deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they loved the United States so much as to want to do everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. That is exactly what happened for the past 7 or so years. I just am thankful that President Obama is adopting many of the same policies of the Bush administration. I say to everyone, let us hope and pray that all things necessary are enacted from henceforth in order to prevent another future terrorist attack.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on
Reverence VS. Idolatry of the Powerful
Should people idolize individuals that are powerful in the world?
I think that sometimes as people we can look up to individuals who should be revered but it can turn into almost like an obsession or idolatry. As individuals we can look up to people who we believe are role models but should we follow and look up to these individuals like they are the be all and end all of everything? We should not put individuals on pedestals like they can do no wrong. We have to realize that everyone is human and can make mistakes and can give in to the temptations of evil in our society.
How exactly were you raised to look at your church leaders?
While growing up I was taught that the priests were like Jesus and in effect almost like Gods. In my opinion the priests are representatives called by God but not in and of themselves like Gods. Priests are in no way perfect. Priests are susceptible to sin just as much you and me. I think that we need to stop putting priests on pedestals and realize that they are human beings that can sin also. Jesus is omnipotent and an all powerful, infallible God but we must not perceive priests in this light. Priests strive to be like God but are not infallible like God.
Priests and other church leaders are great people who are leading others by their good examples, in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am friends with many priests and revere them but do not idolize them. I just think as individuals we must realize that these powerful individuals are human also and can also be tempted and even give in to sin. In my opinion powerful individuals must be revered but not idolized.
I think that sometimes as people we can look up to individuals who should be revered but it can turn into almost like an obsession or idolatry. As individuals we can look up to people who we believe are role models but should we follow and look up to these individuals like they are the be all and end all of everything? We should not put individuals on pedestals like they can do no wrong. We have to realize that everyone is human and can make mistakes and can give in to the temptations of evil in our society.
How exactly were you raised to look at your church leaders?
While growing up I was taught that the priests were like Jesus and in effect almost like Gods. In my opinion the priests are representatives called by God but not in and of themselves like Gods. Priests are in no way perfect. Priests are susceptible to sin just as much you and me. I think that we need to stop putting priests on pedestals and realize that they are human beings that can sin also. Jesus is omnipotent and an all powerful, infallible God but we must not perceive priests in this light. Priests strive to be like God but are not infallible like God.
Priests and other church leaders are great people who are leading others by their good examples, in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am friends with many priests and revere them but do not idolize them. I just think as individuals we must realize that these powerful individuals are human also and can also be tempted and even give in to sin. In my opinion powerful individuals must be revered but not idolized.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Carrie Prejean:Miss CA Keeps Her Crown
In the last few days I learned that it was left up to Donald Trump whether Carrie Prejean would keep her crown and stay as Miss CA. Last night Trump spoke on Greta Van Susteran's On The Record and stated that he had pretty much made his decision on whether Prejean would keep her crown or not. Trump had this somber tone to his voice so I thought he had decided to fire Miss CA.
Today it was made known all across the world that Carrie Prejean is going to indeed stay Miss California. I am glad that Donald Trump made the decision to keep Carrie as Miss CA because I don't think a person should be punished for their opinion. The pictures that were released in order to embarrass Carrie and destroy her career because of Perez Hilton and others disagreeing with her statement was appalling. She was just saying what she believes in, and in doing so stating marriage belongs between a man and a woman. Miss CA stated that this was what she was raised by her parents to believe and is following their example.Donald Trump stated in this day and age that the photos released of Carrie into the public were acceptable and did not cross the line. I think that both Donald Trump and Miss CA showed extraordinary class in this whole situation.
I am personally opposed to gay marriage and am open to debate on this topic. I am all for civil unions which does not require a sexual act or that being implied like gay marriage does. I say to anyone who disagrees with me let's debate this issue. Healthy debate is a very important part of our society and needs to be encouraged.
Today it was made known all across the world that Carrie Prejean is going to indeed stay Miss California. I am glad that Donald Trump made the decision to keep Carrie as Miss CA because I don't think a person should be punished for their opinion. The pictures that were released in order to embarrass Carrie and destroy her career because of Perez Hilton and others disagreeing with her statement was appalling. She was just saying what she believes in, and in doing so stating marriage belongs between a man and a woman. Miss CA stated that this was what she was raised by her parents to believe and is following their example.Donald Trump stated in this day and age that the photos released of Carrie into the public were acceptable and did not cross the line. I think that both Donald Trump and Miss CA showed extraordinary class in this whole situation.
I am personally opposed to gay marriage and am open to debate on this topic. I am all for civil unions which does not require a sexual act or that being implied like gay marriage does. I say to anyone who disagrees with me let's debate this issue. Healthy debate is a very important part of our society and needs to be encouraged.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Democrats Protect Pedophiles in Hate Speech Bill
Here is a video of Republican Rep. Steve King introducing an exemption so that pedophiles will not be covered under Hate Crimes Bill but the Democrats decided to vote NO and protect pedophiles. In the same video Republicans requested that Veterans be added and protected by the hate crimes legislation but Democrats also voted NO. So the Democrats have chosen to protect pedophiles but not our military veterans. Does this make sense to you? Let's make sure every Representative is known by name across the U.S. that they support pedophiles but not the military. We, as Americans need to hold our public officials accountable. If Obama signs this piece of legislation how can he say that he is for protecting our children? He is in effect throwing our most precious, innocent children to these predators who will have protection under the law. Our children need a voice and they need to be protected, not the criminals.
You Might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF. . . .
You Might be a Left-Wing Extremist if. . . .
During the last week or so I have been thinking about how our government is targeting and labeling citizens who have religious beliefs and believe in the sanctity of human life for both the born and unborn, as right-wing extremists. Here is something I created a set of sayings that is a combination of the truth and a spin-off of Jeff Foxworthy’s You might be a redneck if.. In response I would like to call out the left-wing extremists:
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist If…You believe in socialism.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist If…You believe in rewarding the poor for doing nothing.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… like Janeane Garofalo you hate rednecks.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF…You believe in paying higher taxes and rewarding a wasteful government.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF…You believe in tea bagging, while mocking the tea party protesters.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You believe in unrestricted abortion which kills innocent unborn children.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You watch Keith Olbermann.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You believe in the Hollywood way of life.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You ascribe to the “green” movement, global warming hysteria, and want to raise utility prices sky high.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You belong to Moveon.org.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You like George Soros.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You listen to Air America.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF…You like hanging out with the America’s enemies and acting like they are our allies.
You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You believe an adulterous husband should have the right to starve and dehydrate his comatose wife to death.
Since our government has chosen to target conservatives who are law abiding citizens, I have chosen to call out on the left-wing extremists which may include segments of our government as well.
Crossposted to http://teresamerica.blogtownhall.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)