American Dissident Voices for June 6, 2009
Obama's Anti-White Supreme Court Nominee
By Erich Gliebe

Hello, and welcome back to another edition of American Dissident
Voices, the Internet radio program of North America's foremost
racialist organization, the National Alliance. I'm your host and
the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

President Barack Obama spent his first one hundred days in office
initiating a 'stimulus plan' for the economy that first of all,
sends little if any money into areas that could stimulate the
economy and, second of all, bankrupts generations of our children
and grandchildren. The only way such terrible bankrupting can be
somewhat lessened is for the middle class to take on massive tax
increases. Obama is promising such tax increases. Now, as the
economy continues to plummet, Obama has made his first Supreme
Court appointment, a Latina named Sonia Sotomayor.

In looking for a replacement for Judge Souter, one of the most
liberal justices in Supreme Court history, Obama said he wanted
someone of great intellect, someone with great knowledge of the
law, and someone with empathy. He elaborated on the empathy point
by saying that a Supreme Court Justice should have an
experiential background that allows her to identify with people
who have been oppressed and to render judgments that take into
account how that judgment will affect the "downtrodden." In other
words, knowledge of the law has to be influenced by the judge's
personal background that allows her to feel empathy for the
oppressed, and, in the meantime, to hell with the Constitution.
If the judge considers the Constitution insufficient to render
"real" justice, then the judge must overlook the Constitution and
make new law from the bench. Perhaps the judge, as some have,
must consult foreign law if our Constitution does not give them
what they want. In essence, majority voices on courts
unconstitutionally become dictators who make law. Let me remind
everyone again what they should have learned in grade school that
Congress is charged with making laws, not the courts, not even
the Supreme Court.

In one of her statements caught on video, Judge Sotomayor admits
that she sees policy setting as a responsibility of appellate
court judges. She quickly tried to reverse herself by saying that
she shouldn't have said what she said because the people and the
Constitution object to that role of the courts. Well, right. And
even Obama was saying that the young woman was simply trying to
maintain her own female place in the political perspective of her
husband. But we still know how Miss Sotomayor views the matter.
She is an activist judge who wants essentially to make law, not
interpret or apply it. That is where her empathy comes in, and
her empathy is all in favor of non-whites. In that regard, she
follows in a long line of activist judges who legislate from the
bench, legalizing or striking down things the majority of the
American people would not tolerate if done by the Congress. The
woman simply stuck her foot in her mouth in an unguarded moment
and tried to cover her tracks before anyone noticed. But people
noticed.

But things get worse. Judge Sotomayor also said publicly and on
tape that a Latina with her life experience could be expected to
rule justly more often on the Supreme Court than White male
justices could. First of all, the Constitution is the
Constitution, and the life experience of a judge should have no
impact on how that judge reads the words and intent of the
Constitution. Still, Obama and Sotomayor believe otherwise. But
rational people must ask why a person with a history of
understanding oppression should be a better reader and
interpreter of the Constitution than a White male. After all,
White males wrote the Constitution. But think what the response
would be if a White judge inferred that, because of his life
experience as a White male, he could rule on the Constitution
better than
Blacks or mestizos could. You better believe that the White judge
would be immediately castigated and removed from the bench. Such
is the double standard we labor under today.

Regardless of whether people are conservative or "progressive"
they should not support legislation from the bench. That, in
itself, is blatantly unconstitutional! The judge is supposed to
rule on the basis of what the Constitution says, and if the
people don't like what the Constitution says, then the people
should sponsor a Constitutional amendment to change the law. At
least that process is constitutional! As it stands, progressives
sit back and wait for "progressive" judges to twist the
Constitution into unrecognizable patterns as was done in the case
of Roe vs. Wade, and they today elect people like Obama to carry
out that agenda.

Sotomayor's most controversial judgment is the verdict she
rendered last year as an Appellate Court judge when she sided
with the City of New Haven, Connecticut, in a discrimination case
brought by White firefighters. The New Haven Fire Department was
prepared to promote twenty firemen based on the results of civil
service tests. When tests were taken, nineteen Whites and one
Latino made up the passing twenty positions. Knowing how Blacks
expect to be forwarded, New Haven then threw out the results
because too few non-Whites and no Blacks scored high enough to be
promoted. The fire department responded by standing up to New
Haven and by not promoting anyone. It just so happens that one
White man who was not promoted was a dyslectic fire fighter who
spent considerable money to correct his disability and to prepare
for the test. Sotomayor did not allow his efforts to be rewarded
because he is White. This is the kind of "justice" we can expect
from Judge Sotomayor. That case is now in the hands of the U.S.
Supreme Court, a body that most legalists say will overturn her
decision. After all, over half of her decisions that reached the
Supreme Court have been overturned! What an accomplished judge
she is!

But we aren't done. Sotomayor is also on record as an official of
La Raza, a Mestizo organization that believes Mexico is the
rightful owner of many Western states of our country. Well, if
demographics continue as they are, Mexico WILL own most of our
Western states. Sotomayor apparently advocates the La Raza
position, and this should raise red flags all over America. Some
have recommended she resign her position with La Raza in order to
make herself a more palatable nominee for the Supreme Court.
Whether she resigns or not, Americans who pay attention to what
is happening know what her very disturbing stand is.

Of course, most everyone knew that Obama had to nominate a woman.
In our day of gender and racial politics, that was a given. It
was also politically astute on Obama's part to name a Latina
woman, in this case one whose mother came from Puerto Rico. This
appointment was politically astute because it will be very hard
for Republicans to raise a voice against her. If Republicans take
a stand and expose her for what she really is, they could
severely injure the Republican outreach to Latinos, a percentage
of whose votes they need if they want to be competitive in the
2010 and 2012 elections. At the same time, if Republicans roll
over and play dead in the hearings and in the Senate vote, their
conservative base will desert them in the coming years as a
result of their refusal to stand up for principles. In essence,
Obama knows that the Republicans cannot win either way they go.

Regardless of what happens in the upcoming hearings, even if all
the Republicans object to Sotomayor, which they won't, her
confirmation is absolutely assured because of the political
configuration of the Senate. Obama knew on the day he selected
her that he could nominate the most radical non-White female to
the court.

We can expect some Republicans to question Sotomayor on her
unfortunate statements, on her New Haven ruling, and on her
connection to La Raza, but don't expect much heat. Republicans
will go through the motions of
questioning her, and then they will pretend to swallow whatever
she says, even if they know that every word out of her mouth has
been put there by the Democrat operatives who will prepare her
for the hearings. By the time she confronts questions, she will
be a master at replying to questions in ways that don't answer
the questions. In essence, we won't know any more about where she
really stands than we do now.

In conclusion, there are lessons we should learn from this
Supreme Court nomination. Leftists elected Obama because he could
be trusted to nominate activist judges to the Supreme Court, and
because he could be counted on to weaken America militarily,
economically, and racially. Elections have consequences, and
White America, especially White women, gave their votes to Obama
because they wanted change. Well, we are getting change. The
economy is in worse shape now that it was when Obama took office,
and White America is more imperiled than it ever was before. Oh,
but I guess many White lemmings, feminists, and couch potatoes
like it that another non-White is on the Supreme Court, even if
she vows to render judgments that will make their lives worse.

What are we to do? I hate to be negative, but White people must
wake up NOW because later will be too late. The National Alliance
is here. We are active on the part of White people, but White
people must become concerned for their own political, cultural,
and economic well-being. White-based organizations cannot do the
work for the whole country. Too many White people take the view
that we have always slogged along successfully and we will
probably continue to slog along no matter who is in office or
what is done. Well, White people like that, or their children and
grandchildren, are going to reap the whirlwind caused by their
indifference and lack of understanding and pride in their
heritage. The National Alliance is doing all we can do to help,
but more people must join Our Cause, which is ultimately their
cause. Time is truly growing short.

And as I mentioned last week, the new issue of National Vanguard
magazine, #142, is now out, and features articles from Jim Ring,
Dr. Don Smith, Farnham O'Reilly, Hans Immelmann, and yours truly.

I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SUBSCRIBE to NATIONAL VANGUARD, our unique, thought-provoking 
magazine -- $22 US, $30 Canada, and $40 Foreign.
This is for six high-quality, glossy color issues:

SEND $3 for our 88-page CATALOG of books and other items:

     National Vanguard Books
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Donations are needed to keep this program on the air. Give $20
today!
http://www.natvanbooks.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid
=599
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. 
This 
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to
be 
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup
posting.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The National Alliance: www.natvan.com & www.natall.com
National Vanguard Books: www.natvanbooks.com

(c) 2009 National Vanguard Books