Accuracy in Media

Bill O’Reilly has declared, “I don’t think she’s a racist,” in regard to Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though it turns out that her comment about a Latina woman making better decisions than a white man was repeated on several occasions. O’Reilly turns a blind eye to her raw display of racism because he doesn’t want to be accused of being a racist himself. This is how cowardly the sponsor of the “No Spin Zone” has become in the face of a politically correct “debate” that has already forced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to retract his charge of racism against her.

False accusations against white people are tolerated by the media, even the conservative media. This is why Al Sharpton is a frequent guest on the O’Reilly show, despite his participation in the Tawana Brawley hoax, whereby he falsely accused a group of white men of raping a black woman.   

But accurate accusations of racism against members of minority groups who make racist statements are not tolerated. That is why Gingrich backed away from his accurate comments, and why O’Reilly said he didn’t want to have anything to do with them. 

“When I did a Twitter about her, having read what she said, I said that was racist, but I applied it to her as a person,” Gingrich said on Face the Nation. “The truth is, I don’t know her as a person.” Gloria Borger on CNN reported that Republican senators had asked Gingrich to retract the charge. More cowardice.

Yet the words themselves were evidence of racism. What’s more, she had made the same kind of statement on different occasions.

It is obvious that Gingrich will never “know her” in the sense of sitting down with her for hours and exchanging views. Conclusions have to be based on what people say and do. And when someone assumes a position of gender and racial superiority over others, what other conclusion can you come to, except that he or she is a racist? Even Obama agreed that the statement was a poor choice of words. It was a controversy, if given the media coverage it deserved, that could have seriously damaged the nominee because it gets to the heart of what she personally believes and thinks about America.

However, there’s another major controversy lurking-her anti-American views, despite having benefited from extraordinary opportunities in America. And then there’s a political speech she made, in violation of judicial ethics, hailing Obama’s election and calling on the legal profession to implement the Obama agenda. Any one of these scandals could sink her nomination-if the media do their duty and cover them.

Ironically, some of this has already surfaced on a far-left radio show, where Puerto Rican political writer and analyst Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua said that Judge Sotomayor is “not a daughter of the American Revolution” but instead “a child of colonialism.”

He told Amy Goodman’s radio show, “Judge Sotomayor was a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, which meant three things: number one, that she was an ethnic national, a Puerto Rican; number two, that she felt that ethnic Puerto Rican deserved and needed a defense; and third, that she dedicated 12 years of her life to that defense, the defense of the Puerto Rican ethnicity within the United States of America.”

Sotomayor was not born in Puerto Rico. She was born in the Bronx in New York. Still, she apparently counts Puerto Rico, not America, as her home.

The United States “invaded her country,” said Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua, reinforcing the point that she owes her allegiance to Puerto Rico. Her appointment, he said, touches on the “colonial relationship” between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. He was described on the show as someone who knows Sotomayor well.

This is a matter that must be covered by the media and explored by the Senate. The radical or Marxist view is that Puerto Rico is under colonial occupation and deserves independence. Sotomayor holds that view. Her 1976 thesis expressed support for Puerto Rican independence because she feared the “Americanization” of Puerto Rico.

In her thesis on Puerto Rico, Sotomayor came across as bitter, saying that “The experiences of Alaska and Hawaii since their statehood with cultural destruction has been indicative of the cultural loss Puerto Rico would eventually face if statehood for the island were chosen. Under the commonwealth status, there has been a gradual deterioration of the Spanish language among the Puerto Rican populace and a growing Americanization of the island. The loss of cultural autonomy has become the price of permanent union with the United States.” 

Obama, still the source of controversy about where exactly he was born, said he wanted a nominee with empathy. But she didn’t have any empathy for Frank Ricci, the white firefighter who worked hard to pass an exam to get a promotion but was denied that promotion simply because a certain number of blacks didn’t score as high as he did. She ruled that Ricci and other firefighters didn’t have a case. This is what Sotomayor thinks of merit and hard work if you are a white male. It proves that her words mean something. It is racism, no matter how many convoluted arguments people like Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus try to make on her behalf. 

In a column titled, “The ‘Radical’ Who Isn’t,” the liberal Marcus tries to rationalize a racist decision that she knows could seriously damage the nominee. The public would be advised to visit the website of the “New Haven 20” who were denied their promotions by ugly racism and understand how simple the case is. 

Sotomayor was also a member of the National Council of La Raza, which claims that “La Raza” has been “mistranslated” as “the race” and actually means “the people” or the “community.” They want to avoid the connotation that the group is racist. But the Webster’s New World Spanish dictionary defines “Raza” as race. The word for people is “gente.” The word for community is “comunidad.” 

Once again, the truth has taken a back seat to being politically correct and masking the racist nature of an organization that Sotomayor belonged to. 

In a 1996 speech, “The Genesis and Needs of an Ethnic Identity,” she talks at length at the Third World Center about her own ethnic identity, even how she eats ethnic foods, and goes on to say, “America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and color-blind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud.”

One might argue with justification that she is the one who has a confused or warped image of America.

There are, of course, some “white rights” or “white pride” organizations around, but they are shunned, criticized or condemned, even by whites. For the most part, white people think of themselves as Americans, and not as European-Americans.

But affirming one’s Latina identity is perfectly acceptable, and is apparently considered a qualification for the Supreme Court. That is because, in the Marxist view, she is a member of an oppressed group who needs to express herself against white supremacy.

Her 2002 Berkeley Law Review article, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” goes into substantial detail regarding her complaints about the allegedly low number of Latinos and women on the courts. In this article she repeats her statement about a “wise” Latina woman making better decisions than a white male.

But none of this really bothers the media. “The Latina Justice” proclaims the cover of Time magazine, as if confirmation is all but certain.

But the “Latina Justice” is generally considered liberal. So she will vote like the liberal “white male” she is replacing. Still, the point is that she looks different, and that is apparently what counts with the media.  

In my previous column on this nomination, I noted that Sotomayor had delivered a speech entitled, “Being the Change We Need for Our Communities.” It sounded like something delivered by a political candidate or Obama himself. We now have a copy of that speech.

 Just about two months ago, this sitting federal judge, who is supposed to be above politics, told the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association that “The power of working together was, this past November, resoundingly proven.”

“On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences,” she said, hailing Obama’s election.

She added, “What is our challenge today: Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence. We have to continue to work together for our common goal of bringing the promise of America’s greatness and fairness to all members of our society.”

Notice how she referred to herself as a “citizen of the world,” not as a citizen of the United States. This takes on significance in her case because she wrote a foreword to a book called The International Judge. Does she believe in American sovereignty?

Calling for more “change,” she said, “It is the message of service that President Obama is trying to trumpet and it is a clarion call we are obligated to heed. We must devote ourselves to bettering the lives of all the needy of our society and we must do it together.”

She is openly advocating using the courts to push Obama’s political agenda.

Based on these comments, which violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Sotomayor should not only be forced to withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, she should be impeached.  

Canon 7 says a judge should refrain from political activity. It explains that she should NOT “make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office…”

The fact that her speech occurred after the election should not affect the severity of the offense. It sent the message that she is a liberal judge who will legislate for Obama from the bench. No wonder she got the nomination. She seemed to be auditioning for it. 

In light of this and other controversies, it’s also no wonder Senate liberals are trying to rush this nomination through. This nominee has a lot of obvious baggage that has only begun to be examined for contraband.

In terms of media coverage, we will probably be seeing more “American dream” stories about her, and how she made something out of herself in the U.S. This is a tremendous achievement. It would be relevant were it not for the evidence suggesting that she seems to have no real allegiance to the country whose government she views as oppressing her people.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.