Is Striving For Another Racial And Ethnic Record Endangering Our Being?
May 28, 2009
Political correctness is nothing more than censorship. It puts restrictions on what we can and cannot do and say. Many believe in our attempt to be politically correct we have taken it to an extreme. My question today is this. Have we taken it to such an extreme we are putting ourselves, our culture, our strength and ability to survive as the greatest nation on earth at risk?
I mostly began asking myself this question during the 2008 presidential campaign when I heard over and over, that we needed to elect our first black person to be president of the United States as well maybe the first female president. I have no problem with that and I hope you don’t either. But did we elect our first black person president for that reason only? Probably not but intelligent thought can tell us that it is likely that a certain number of voters cast their ballots only because Barack Obama is considered black.
Have we become somewhat obsessed with the idea that making historic firsts involving race and gender are more important than finding the best qualified person to do the job at hand?
Some people believe that every aspect of our lives should be a reflection of our society. Well, it is to some degree and there is certainly nothing wrong with working toward a better understanding of social and ethnic differences. We have worked hard over the years to find ways of mixing and matching and integrating races, as well as attempts to educate our citizens to the diversity in culture that other people were once a part of. Does there come a time when striving so hard to create diversity in race and culture become a danger to our own society?
Just yesterday, President Obama announced that he would like to see Sonia Sotomayor sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Is she the best candidate for the job? Is she the most qualified? Did Obama pick her because she was a woman or that she was Hispanic?
Again, when discussions prior to Obama’s selection focused on who the president might pick, many said it was time that the first Hispanic sat on the court. I don’t have a problem with that. Some even went so far as to say it should be an Hispanic woman. I also don’t have a problem with that. History would be served if the appointee was of Hispanic decent they said.
When you take your car to the repair shop, let’s say for a brake job. Do you want the best person qualified to fix your brakes? It could save your life or are you more concerned whether the mechanic works at a firm that is racially and ethnically diverse? Maybe you never thought about it.
When your kids start school and they get on the school bus, are you concerned about who is driving your kid to school? Do you want a good, safe driver, well trained and not a child molester driving your kid to school? Or would you be more interested in making sure that all bus drivers have racial and ethnic representation? The same can be asked about teachers.
One day you learn that you have a brain tumor and the only hope of survival is surgery. Do you want the best surgeon around or are you more interested in whether or not brain surgeons are well represented racially and ethnically?
Recently in Hartford, Connecticut, firemen took an exam hoping for a promotion. After the exam, it was determined that it was mostly whites who scored high on the exam and that there wasn’t a good enough representation of race and ethnicity in the high scores, so the test was throw out. A lawsuit ensued and when the case reached the Second Federal Court of Appeals, the decision to throw out the test results was upheld. Judge Sonia Sotomayor was one of those judges who signed onto the ruling opinion. But this is not really my point.
During debate over this action, one night while watching the news, I heard one man who lived in Hartford being interviewed by the news reporter. The man made a statement that went like this: “It is most important that our fire departments are a reflection of our society, racially and ethnically.”
In other words, this man was saying that it mattered not to him whether the firefighters who showed up at his house to fight a fire and perhaps have to rescue him or his family were not necessarily the best trained, only that they were diverse of race and ethnicity.
Surely this man couldn’t have meant what he said. If that were true, we would need to begin structurally changing a lot of things in this country to reflect the racial and ethnic percentages of our society. Where should we start? Professional sports?
If you will recall when President Bush had to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, he picked Harriet Miers. There was outrage. Not that she was a woman but because she was not the most qualified person for that position. Many of us felt at the time that President Bush felt obligated to replace outgoing Justice Sandra O’Connor with another woman, even if it meant not filling the job with the best candidate.
Is President Obama making a similar decision in his option to nominate Sonia Sotomayor? I am told that Obama’s short list of four finalists where all women. Does this tell us that there are no men in the United States who are qualified to server on the Supreme Court or was Obama’s focus on satisfying the cries of his people that they wanted to make history….again?
What I find disturbing are the reasons given to appoint her and many of the comments Sotomayor herself has made.
Obama made it very clear that he was looking for someone who would be “empathetic” in their decision making process. Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod said recently that Sotomayor would be ready to adapt the principles of our Constitution to a modern day concept.
Those promoting the nomination of Sotomayor seemed quite focused on her life story as though it somehow should be the deciding factor in her qualifications to be a Supreme Justice. She herself is recorded as saying she felt a Latino woman, having lived a trying life, could make better judicial decisions than a white man who hadn’t.
These are all disturbing factors for those of us who treasure the U.S. Constitution as it is written. We can only hope these difficulties will be considered during upcoming hearings. The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Nothing should get by them. They, as a group, have to uphold the very Constitution that has held the country together and made it strong.
I heard Sotomayor yesterday say that she believes that the rule of law is what keeps this country together. That’s not what I wanted to hear from an appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps that would have been a great statement coming from a newly appointed chief of police. For a Supreme Court justice, I would rather have heard that they believed that the U.S. Constitution is what has made America great and for us to continue on a strong path in retaining liberty and justice, we need a justice who fully understands that document of what it meant when it was written and that it means the same thing today.
Like the brain surgeon about to take your life into his or her hands, do you want the next Supreme Court Justice to be the best qualified or someone who makes history because they would be the first Latina to sit on the bench?
It’s your call.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!



We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.


These guys are into this ethnic engineering nonsense..WHY, because it creates racial animosity and hatred, with division..White Protestants started this Nation, wrote the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence. Along the way we never taught it to the Blacks and Hispanics and the majority hate it..
How can we remain a great nation with the think tank listed below doing the deciding about our in house and foreign policy…We flat out cannot do it..their doing it..Jefferson-Adams-Monroe WARNED AGAINST THIS VERY GROUP…We would have done well to listen to that advise…Ask your self why is the Aldobrandini Family and their Master the Orsini Family led by Pepe Orsini Mandating what happens in America via their damn puppet and President of the world the Superior General – Black Pope- sitting on his arse in the Vatican..Who I might add has no Papal blood line coursing through his veins..And jumps at every command given from these families..WAKE UP…your Creator is showing you the truth…They are being exposed…They can no longer hide….
The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) was originally called “The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law of Rome” This is the institute that developed the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] & also developed the original drafts of UN commerical law.
http://www.unidroit.org/english/presentation/main.htm
The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) is an independent intergovernmental organisation with its seat in the Villa Aldobrandini in Rome. Its purpose is to study needs and methods for modernising, harmonising and co-ordinating private and in particular commercial law as between States and groups of States.
The word “seat” is important to note. The term “see” comes from the Latin word “sedes”, meaning “seat”, which refers to the Episcopal throne.
Set up in 1926 as an auxiliary organ of the League of Nations, the Institute was, following the demise of the League, re-established in 1940 on the basis of a multilateral agreement, the UNIDROIT Statute .
These are the building overlooking the whole valley up to Rome, it was built on the order of Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, Pope Clement VIII’s nephew over a pre-existing edifice built by the Vatican prelate Alessandro Rufini in 1550. Pietro Aldobrandini was the “CamerLengo”, the treasurer of the Holy See. Interesting that the villa built by a holy see treasurer is used to draft commercial law for the UN
[URL=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-mq ... t&resnum=2]My Webpage[/URL]
user posted image
ACHIEVEMENTS
UNIDROIT has over the years prepared over seventy studies and drafts. Many of these have resulted in international instruments, including the following international Conventions and Model Laws, drawn up by UNIDROIT and – in the case of Conventions – adopted by diplomatic Conferences convened by member States of UNIDROIT:
1964 Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (The Hague);
1964 Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (The Hague);
1970 International Convention on the Travel Contract (Brussels);
1973 Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will (Washington);
1983 Convention on Agency in the International Sale of Goods (Geneva);
1988 UNIDROIT Convention on International Financial Leasing (Ottawa);
1988 UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring (Ottawa);
1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (Rome);
2001 Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol to the Convention on Matters specific to Aircraft Equipment(Cape Town);
2002 Model Franchise Disclosure Law ;
2007 Luxembourg Protocol on Matters specific to Railway Rolling Stock to the 2001 Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment.
This is the hidden link to the UNIDROIT libary
http://asp01.exl.de/F
And this a search of the library showing the UCC connection to UNIDROIT & the Holy See
http://asp01.exl.de/F/L3VVLPIUMDPP4CRS3 … 1&x=44&y=6
Now for the smoking gun…
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/index.html
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (established in 1966) is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly of the United Nations with the general mandate to further the progressive harmonization and unification of the law of international trade.
After a bit of digging we discover in a scan of a meeting at UN Headquarters, New York
on Tuesday, 1 March 1955, at 11.15 a.m.
Go to page 3
http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/tra … 507218.pdf
The Secretariat would make relevant documentation available in addition to
that before the Committee, In particular the ICC publication Commercial Arbitration & the Law throughout the World; and the DRAFT Uniform law on arbitration prepared
by International Institute for the Unification of Private Law of Rome,
“draft” is a written order for the payment of a specified sum of money, & UNIDROIT [Holy See] wrote the order for the UN
Australia is a member of UNCITRAL & the laws are used as a guide to redraft Australian commercial law. Below is a link to Australian “ACT”s & you will discover 100’s of references to UNCITRAL in Australian law
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinos … mask_path=
[...] to fill the vacated Supreme Court Justice seat of David Souter’s? If you will recall, I expressed my fears that once again our out of touch bureaucrats in Washington would vote for a judge for the highest [...]
[...] to fill the vacated Supreme Court Justice seat of David Souter’s? If you will recall, I expressed my fears that once again our out of touch bureaucrats in Washington would vote for a judge for the highest [...]