[Vision2020] Fw: [Spam 6.21] Weekly Update: Judge Sotomayor's Radical Connections

Sat Jun 6 00:14:17 PDT 2009

What is the point of referring to Sotomayor's views as "radical"? That  
is certainly a distortion of the truth.

On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:36 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

>
> -----Original message-----
>
> From: Tom Fitton info at JudicialWatch.org
> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:31:17 -0700
> To: LFALEN at TURBONET.COM
> Subject: [Spam 6.21] Weekly Update: Judge Sotomayor's Radical  
> Connections
>
> June 5, 2009
>
>> From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
>      Judge Sotomayor's Radical Connections
>      Judicial Watch's investigation of Obama's Supreme Court nominee
> Sonia Sotomayor continues. This week, our investigations team  
> unearthed
> some interesting and disturbing information related to Sotomayor's
> connection to the radical organization, Puerto Rican Legal Defense  
> Fund
> (PRLDF). Sotomayor served on the Board from 1980 until 1992, which  
> is a
> significant period of time.
>      According to
> [http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/26/sotomayors-radical-legal- 
> group] The
> American Spectator: "Among radical left-wing groups, [the PRLDF] has a
> fairly garden-variety agenda. A captive of identity politics, it  
> pushes for
> enforced multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual public education,
> race-based gerrymandering of electoral districts, race-based  
> employment
> quotas, tenants' rights, and illegal immigrants' rights."
>      Check out some of the group's activities during Sotomayor's  
> tenure
> as the "top policy maker" on the PRLDF's Board of Directors:
>
> - In 1988, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund engaged in a battle  
> with
> the New York City Police Department over its "racist" promotion exam,
> ultimately presiding over a radical redesign to allow more  
> minorities to
> achieve a passing grade. According to
> [http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/13/nyregion/despite-revisions-few-blacks-passed-police-sergeant-test.html?pagewanted=all]
> The New York Times: "The new test, a four-part exam prepared with  
> the help
> of an expert designated by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense  
> Fund...involved
> changes in format, including the addition of open-book questions and a
> video portion."
> - In 1990, the PRLDF attacked then-New York Mayor David Dinkins  
> after the
> mayor labeled three Puerto Rican "nationalists" who shot five  
> members of
> Congress in 1954
> "[http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/16/nyregion/praising-mandela-dinkins-shakes-fragile-coalition.html]
> assassins." The radicals were members of a violent Puerto Rican  
> terrorist
> group FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional). The PRLDF said  
> the
> mayor's comments "lacked sensitivity." Reuben Franco, President of the
> PRLDF said: "[Mayor Dinkins] doesn't recognize that to many people in
> Puerto Rico, these are fighters for freedom and justice, for  
> liberation,
> just as is Nelson Mandela, who himself advocated bearing arms."
> - In 1981, the PRLDF filed a complaint against New York City Mayor  
> Thomas
> Dunn following a City Hall directive requiring staff to speak  
> English while
> on the job. In 1990, the organization also opposed a law to require
> merchants to post an English sign in the storefront explaining the  
> nature
> of business.                  Trust me, this is a very small  
> sampling of a
> very large universe of radical activity by PRLDF during Judge  
> Sotomayor's
> tenure. I've reviewed her responses to the U.S. Senate questionnaire  
> in
> preparation for her nomination. The judge does not disclose much at  
> all
> about her significant work the PRLDF. We aim to help fill in the  
> gaps. And
> I will have much more for you in the coming weeks as we continue to  
> delve
> deeply into Judge Sotomayor's history and affiliations.
>      Judicial Watch Probes Overseas Trips by DC Mayor
>      Washington, DC, Mayor Adrian Fenty found himself in hot water
> recently related to two overseas trips that were bankrolled by foreign
> governments. (Even the liberal Washington Post
> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602614.html]
> took a swipe at the DC Democrat.) The first, a trip to China during  
> the
> Olympic Games in 2008. And the second, an "unannounced trip" to Dubai
> February 15-22, 2009.
>      Of course, these trips provoked a number of questions. What was
> Mayor Fenty doing on these trips? Were these elaborate vacations or  
> was the
> mayor on official business? Why were two foreign governments so keen  
> on
> paying for Mayor Fenty to travel overseas?
>      Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with  
> the
> mayor's office earlier this year. Recently we obtained documents  
> from the
> Office of the Secretary for the District of Columbia that shed some  
> light
> on the matter.
>      Included among the documents is the original
> [http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/dc_fenty_response_0509.pdf]
> "application to approve donations" from the Office of Partnerships and
> Grants in the mayor's office detailing the $25,000 February 13^th in- 
> kind
> donation made by Yousef Al-Otaiba, United Arab Emirates Ambassador  
> to the
> United States and Mexico, to cover the mayor's travel expenses  
> during the
> Dubai trip.
>      The documents describe the Dubai trip as follows: "Cultural and
> economic exchange, including the Mayor's travel and accommodations  
> for the
> official portion of his trip to Dubai, UAE, during which he will be
> representing the District of Columbia and acting in his official  
> capacity
> at meetings with UAE local government and business leaders."
>      Mayor Fenty sustained heavy criticism for making the  
> "unannounced"
> trip to Dubai in February after he attended the Dubai Tennis  
> Championships,
> where a female Israeli tennis player was prohibited from competing  
> in the
> tournament. As a member of the DC City Council, Fenty had harshly
> criticized then-Mayor Anthony Williams for taking overseas trips,  
> many of
> which were funded by foreign governments.
>      The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, also detail a
> [http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/dc_fenty_response_0509.pdf]
> separate trip made by Mayor Fenty to China during the 2008 Summer  
> Olympic
> Games.
>      Mayor Fenty's trip to China, which cost $11,300 according to the
> documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, was paid for by the  
> governments of
> Shanghai and Beijing, as well as the Chinese People's Association for
> Friendship, a Chinese government entity.
>      One letter, signed by the Director General of Beijing's Foreign
> Affairs Office states: "...The City of Beijing will, as always, attach
> great importance to the sister-city relationship between our two  
> cities,
> and will further enhance this relationship in an effort to promote our
> common prosperity and development." At the time, Mayor Fenty  
> described the
> Beijing trip as a "private vacation."
>      The bottom line is this: Mayor Fenty works for the taxpayers of
> Washington, DC, not the UAE or the Communist Chinese government. His
> decision to take these donations through his office from foreign
> governments demonstrates an appalling lack of judgment. The Mayor  
> ought to
> be taking vacations on his own dime.
>      Judicial Watch Briefs: Border Security and Bailouts
>      I will close this week with two brief takes on two very important
> issues:
>      Obama Administration Asleep at the Switch While Situation at  
> Border
> Deteriorates
>      As I've told you in recent weeks, the Obama administration seems
> completely tone deaf when it comes to the chaotic and dangerous  
> nature of
> the nation's southern border.
>      Just a few weeks ago, Judicial Watch recently released a U.S.
> Customs and Border Protection report titled,
> [http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/CBP_Report_1_ExecSummary.pdf]
> BorderStat Violence, FY 2008 Year in Review, which documents a sharp
> increase in violence on the U.S. border with Mexico. Here's just one
> statistic: Illegal incursions into the United States by members of the
> Mexican military and/or police are up an astonishing 357%.
>      And now this from
> [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/03/al-qaeda-eyes-bio-attack-via-mexico-border/?feat=home_features]
> The Washington Times:
>            "U.S. counterterrorism officials have authenticated a  
> video by
> an al Qaeda recruiter threatening to smuggle a biological weapon  
> into the
> United States via tunnels under the Mexico border, the latest sign  
> of the
> terrorist group's determination to stage another mass-casualty  
> attack on
> the U.S. homeland."
>            In the face of what is obviously an indisputable crisis  
> on our
> border with Mexico, what has been the Obama administration's response?
>      Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently
> [http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/napolitano-says-thanks-but-no-thanks-dhs-has-funds-2009-03-25.html]
> turned down an offer for increased funding from the Senate Committee  
> on
> Homeland Defense to address the problem of violence on the southern  
> border.
> The Obama administration also rejected an appeal from Texas Governor  
> Rick
> Perry and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to deploy 1,000 National Guard  
> troops
> to help quell border violence. Instead, the Obama administration  
> announced
> a plan to temporarily send 360 federal agents to the border, a plan  
> which
> has little chance of succeeding. And then the president rolled out the
> welcome mat to illegals by announcing support for an amnesty program.
>      I hope it doesn't take a catastrophic terrorist attack to  
> convince
> the president that he must take drastic measures to secure the U.S.  
> border
> with Mexico.
>      Lobbyists in the Obama White House
>      The Obama administration finds itself in an inherently corrupt
> situation now that the president has seized large stakes in private
> corporations.
>      From
> [http://freep.com/article/20090603/BUSINESS01/906030335/GM+to+keep+its+in-house+lobbying+staff]
> The Detroit Free Press:
>            General Motors Corp. began canceling contracts with outside
> lobbyists Tuesday but made clear its intention to maintain its in- 
> house
> advocacy corps, beginning a delicate balancing act between GM and its
> soon-to-be majority shareholder: the White House.
>      "It may cause some unique situations,'" said Dave Wenhold,  
> president
> of the American League of Lobbyists. Complicating the relationship are
> President Barack Obama's own set of tough standards for dealings  
> between
> the administration and federal lobbyists.
>      While setting rules that attempt to make dealings between the two
> sides more transparent, he now finds himself in a position of  
> controlling
> more shares in GM than anyone else.
>            As the nation's largest shareholder in GM, the company's
> lobbyists are now working for the Obama White House! That means the
> government will be lobbying itself! Ford, which has not yet been
> nationalized, is at an obvious disadvantage. Ford won't have White  
> House
> officials acting as their lobbyists. And nor will the "foreign" auto
> companies that employ tens of thousands of Americans.
>      Does anyone remember the
> [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/]
> Executive Order signed by Barack Obama on January 21st effectively  
> banning
> lobbyists from serving in his administration? Not worth the paper it  
> was
> written on, obviously, as it seems this policy will not apply to the
> president's auto companies.
>      The fact is the White House has no business – none whatsoever 
>  –
> seizing large stakes in private enterprises. This unprecedented  
> government
> intervention is a fundamental attack on our constitutional and  
> economic
> systems, and is a recipe for disaster.
>      And as I reported to you just
> [http://www.judicialwatch.org/weeklyupdate/2009/20-banks-forced-bailout] 
>  a
> few weeks ago, there was nothing voluntary about the government's  
> scheme to
> "bailout" the nation's largest banks. Treasury Secretary Hank  
> Paulson told
> these companies they had no choice but to take the deal. Details are  
> still
> emerging as to how the GM deal was made, but it has all the  
> hallmarks of
> government action unrestrained by law and ethics. I will have updates
> regarding this ongoing crisis as events warrant.
>   Until next week...
>
>       Tom Fitton
>    President
>    Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized
> under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch  
> is
> dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and  
> promoting a
> return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a
> tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts,
> [https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate] click here.
>       [https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate]
>
>
> This message was sent by: Judicial Watch, 501 School St. SW, Suite  
> 500, Washington, DC 20024
>
> Email Marketing by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com
>
> Manage your subscription:
> http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=6411607&l=2547&s=52ID&m=145937&c=157205
>
> Forward to a friend:
> http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=145937&s=6411607&c=52ID&cid=157205
>
>
>
> This message cannot be displayed because of the way it is formatted.  
> Ask the sender to send it again using a different format or email  
> program. multipart/alternative
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================