Sonia Sotomayor: Not MY Judge!

For Any and All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

After some sham public hearings, political rhetoric on both sides of the new Global Socialist Party holding court in D.C., and chess moves for re-election purposes with respect to the final vote and tally, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate today as the replacement for retiring Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court. The final vote, after all the drama and stand up vote count, was 68-31

Much fanfare was made due to this "historic" appointment in playing both the "race card" and also the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is the third woman to be appointed to the hallowed halls of the Court. Ms. Sotomayor may change the physical characteristics of the Court but it is unlikely she will change the complement of it in any manner since this court is still "liberal" insofar as Constitutional interpretation as mainly comprised of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now appointees. All liberal Administrations.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench by a Bush, the first Bush, and it was the second Bush, George W., that referred to the Constitution as a "damn piece of paper" from all reports and whose actions post 9/11 certainly exhibited the reverence he and that Congress gave to the actual RULE OF LAW and government as set forth within its provisions.

It appears that Ms. Sotomayor in most of her responses is of like mind. As was most on the Senate panel conducting the staged public hearings with respect to her confirmation.

Her clear bias for prior precedents and judge made case law rulings was evident throughout the hearings when referring to the "Rule of Law," no matter how the panel members from both sides of the aisle tried to politically spin the issue with respect to Obama's seeking a candidate with empathy, and Ms. Sotomayor's statements with respect to her gender and race being a plus insofar as her intepretive skills over those of others.

Even when the Republicans were posturing with their objections, the main objections consisted of fear that she would not rule "according to the law" but her personal bias or emotion. But it was clear their objections were also "liberally" based in their definitions of the "Rule of Law" to which they feared she would stray as being those decisions and the many politically based prior court rulings, some of which are fundamentally and clearly outside the parameters of the Constitution.

Such as the most recent Kelo decision reached during the Bush Administration. And expanding the powers of the Executive Office outside their Constitutional restraints progressively, while diluting Congress's enumerated legal powers, and expanding the law making abilities of regulatory agencies that were never meant to have indpendent "law making" abilities with respect to the citizenry (NOT corporate business interests) in any manner whatsoever in their regulatory functions. Such as the off the wall IRS since its inception, and now the Department of Homeland Security in its jack boot bulletins and police state tactics.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor's oath of office, as with all Justices, is to the Constitution itself, and not to any prior court rendering of it. So the liberals on both sides of the aisle used this appointment in order to deflect and distract most of all, not evaluate Ms. Sotomayor's rulings according to the true "RULE OF LAW."

And interesting the timing of Mr. Souter's resignation, and Ms. Sotomayor's new appointment.

Much has been publicized that Mr. Obama, just as the prior liberal Bush Administration, plans on addressing the status of the over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and from all reports very soon.

Although the American people spoke rather loudly and clearly the last time this was attempted with the McCain/Kennedy "Dream Act" in 2006 under a Bush directive while our southern borders, for the most part, remain unsecured and the funding cut or denied each time the appropriations bills come up under the Secure Fence Act also passed that year, while the citizens lawful and legal civil rights continued to be attacked and take a beating on the pretense of "national security" concerns.

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) also heralded the appointment as "historic" along with the liberal media and press.

MALDEF, of course, is indirectly federally funded by the U.S. taxpayers due to the fact that there is a federal statute that provides for their legal fees and awards for any and all civil rights actions brought by them on behalf of Mexican Americans living in this country and who are natural or naturalized citizens.

However, within the last several years they have also been bringing suits against American citizens on behalf of many of those illegal immigrants, which costs for suit are also being honored and paid by the federal government and being billed then to the deficit and U.S. citizens.

Could this appointment have been a strategic maneuver on behalf of both "liberal" parties which have now merged into the Global Socialist Party after that foreign AIG bailout and Wall Street stimulus prior to addressing the amnesty once again in the event of a legal challenge to its Constitutionality?

Since any amnesty of those already in this country unlawfully under prior federal statutory law would clearly be an "ex post" facto law and thus unconstitutional in any event with respect to those already here who entered unlawfully or have remained other than for temporary work visa, green card or tourism reasons, and such actions would not address nor solve the problem of the influx of illegals which occurs each and every day without first securing with a physical deterrant the over 500 miles of open desert in which they, and the Mexican drug cartels and other "foreigners", cross each and every day. Simply continue the madness, and the confusion as to citizenship status.

And now with all the "privileges and immunities" given foreigners over the lawful and legal Americans, it would appear that those illegals would actually lose "rights" and their free health care, and untaxed wages if they should take Uncle Sam up on that offer anyway. Now that they have been given by the federal courts "standing" and equality and even preference over Americans rights in numerous court actions, how is it now advantageous for them to become peon Americans and potentially lose those jobs to the next crop of illegals to cross those borders within the next month or two?

Appointing such a judge also insures that the "race card" can then be used by the press and liberals again in order to silence the public in such an event, a method used now quite frequently and especially in light of the "hate crimes" legislation and continued threats of "domestic terrorism," and such event isn't unlikely given the recent despicable moves by Washington to continue with its agendas and "in your face" legislation favoring insourced and outsourced foreigner rights and further violating lawful American citizens civil rights (such as the AIG bailout, GM joint venture firing Americans while retaining ownership of outsourced GM plants in Mexico and China, war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and corporate America's outsourced foreign work force in India in tech and retail industries, etc.).

Before this country was settled for the most part even shortly after its founding, America's immigration policies were more restrictive than they are today.

The founders, after all, were protectionists building a new nation. We are in the midst of rebuilding after several natural disasters, and an economic tsunami due to amalgamating our economy with that of the global community unconstitutionally, and yet still affording carte blanche immigration to almost all comers. It has been reported that since 2006 several thousand "at risk" Iraqis now also have been added to the list annually amount to now over 20,000 native born Middle Easterners.

It will be interesting to see how this all unravels, but since we all know something has been rotten in Washington for now quite a number of years, it appears there is an agenda to the recent madness that is and continues to occur.

And this appointment smacks of "politics" and not "the Rule of Law" at all.

With more and more Americans now out of work and with the degree of insourcing that is occuring and increasing due to this worsening economy, such a measure is bound to create further outrage among the lawful population in this country.

In fact, through government contracts, the federal government itself is the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor, while continuing to increase the legal American citizens tax burdens in order to supplement and support this influx of cheap labor for their government contractors, and the big businesses and foreign investors in the financial sector on Wall Street.

In its actions, it appears Washington is almost begging for a civil war in the near future at least within the border states, the states which have been hardest hit with higher unemployment, homelessness and joblessness since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's, and are now under invasion from both the criminal property theft of the border hoppers, drug cartels and their distributors, and others that have resulted in the additional loss of Americans lives and jobs in the thousands in the eight years now since 9/11.

Stay tuned, America. The fireworks continue, and appears it is Washington that is promoting and facilitating purposely the civil unrest in this country with each and every Constitutional violation that is coming now off the Hill.

I'm wondering also, with all the still dissatisfied Americans that have been calling for the Constitutional proof of Mr. Obama's "natural born" or "naturalized" citizenship status prior to his running for the highest office in the land as should have been done due to the number of years in his youth he spent outside the United States and with one parent a non-citizen, if this push again so soon and with our economy now in the toilet, if there also is this other "political" agendas in that respect is also behind it.

The Supreme Court has been tap dancing on that one now for six months, and Congress just did attempt that little sleight of hand in a recent bogus Resolution introduced by a Hawaiian Congressman to in effect "declare" him a citizen again without any disclosure or documented proof that he so much as satisfies the bare minimal requirements for the Office in which he holds. Requirements that acually were based on the European gentry's ideas that children would be raised in this country until they were in their teens when they then left for their "European tours" to finish their educations abroad in languages and cultural differences. That was what was actually behind the 14 year provisions since geographic ties are normally formed in child and young adulthood.

And after that trick and the many, many before more so in the last eight years than at any other time, it is pretty clear that the powers that be on the Hill have no problem both violating the true "LAW OF THE LAND" or attempting in whatever unethical way possible time and again to facilitate end runs around it in order to further their liberalism, global socialism, power plays and political agendas at the cost of those they are truly charged to serve.

The AMERICAN people.