Additional Titles









Safe Schools?

Homeschools, Private Schools,
and Systems Education











By Lynn Stuter
June 16, 2009

In her newsletter of June 8, 2009, Senator Patty Murray (Communist Democrat – Washington State) gushed:

"On Wednesday, I met with U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to discuss her nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor’s life story is the embodiment of the American Dream and I believe that her nomination will be an inspiration to many Americans. I look forward to considering her nomination in the Senate."

Since when is one's "life story" a qualifier to sit on the highest court in the land?

Since when should the possibility that one will be an "inspiration to many Americans" be a qualifier to sit on the highest court in the land?

In response to this obvious oversight of common sense and her oath of office, I responded as follows to Comrade Murray's communiqué:

What a crock. Since when does one's life story have anything to do with one's understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Quite obviously, it has none and this appointment is not only racially motivated on the part of the non-American usurper in the White House, but it is also motivated by her sex which is not a qualifier either!

Beyond this, Sonia Sotomayor is one of the biggest racist bigots in the judiciary. But so long as she's a commie leftist, it's obviously okay with you that she has expressed racial hatred for whites and attempted to block Ricci v DeStefano from reaching the Supreme Court.

She has no business on the Supreme Court and if you are truly an American, you will vote against her. Of course, if you are a racist bigot, as she is, you will vote for her.

Comrade Murray obviously thought better of making a bigger fool of herself than she has already shown herself to be and didn't respond.

Sotomayor has no more business on the Supreme Court than Daffy Duck, Pluto or Mickey Mouse. At least those three have not had 60% of their decisions overturned on appeal; a good indicator of what Sotomayor knows about the law and what consideration she gives to the rule of law when rendering decisions. And while all three are obvious minorities, they didn't find it necessary to join radical ethnically-based groups like the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF, sister organization to MALDEF) or La Raza (means "The Race"), a group solidly behind the Reconquista movement—repatriating much of the west and southwest to Mexico.

Sotomayor is such a racial bigot that when 18 white firefighters passed a promotion exam, given by the city of New Haven (Connecticut), specifically written to be gender- and race-neutral, she upheld the decision of the city to throw out the test and the promotions on the grounds that no racial minorities passed it. One firefighter had studied 10 hours a day to pass the exam; he is dyslexic. To say that Sotomayor has displayed racial hatred of whites would not be inaccurate; going so far, as stated in my response to Comrade Murray, of trying to block the appeal of the firefighters lawsuit from reaching the Supreme Court who did accept certiorari and will render a decision this month.

In an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Sotomayor is quoted as saying,

"With my academic achievement in high school I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates," she said. "And that's been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that - there are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects."

In other words, if you are a race other than white, you might have a different view of the answer to 2+2=? that is the direct result of your race! Now, doesn't that just make a whole lot of sense?

Shelby Steele wrote an excellent article regarding the Sotomayor nomination that was published in The Wall Street Journal. In that article he made some rather astute observations regarding this nomination, including …

"The Sotomayor nomination commits the cardinal sin of identity politics: It seeks to elevate people more for the political currency of their gender and ethnicity than for their individual merit. (Here, too, is the ugly faithlessness in minority merit that always underlies such maneuverings.) Mr. Obama is promising one thing and practicing another, using his interracial background to suggest an America delivered from racial corruption even as he practices a crude form of racial patronage. From America's first black president, and a man promising the "new," we get a Supreme Court nomination that is both unoriginal and hackneyed."

The following, from this same Wall Street Journal article, explains Sotomayor's comment in the San Francisco Chronicle,

"Judge Sotomayor is the archetypal challenger. Challengers see the moral authority that comes from their group's historic grievance as an entitlement to immediate parity with whites — whether or not their group has actually earned this parity through development. If their group is not yet competitive with whites, the moral authority that comes from their grievance should be allowed to compensate for what they lack in development. This creates a terrible corruption in which the group's historic grievance is allowed to count as individual merit. And so a perverse incentive is created: Weakness and victimization are rewarded over development. Better to be a troublemaker than to pursue excellence.

Sonia Sotomayor is of the generation of minorities that came of age under the hegemony of this perverse incentive. For this generation, challenging and protesting were careerism itself. This is why middle- and upper middle-class minorities are often more militant than poor and working-class minorities. America's institutions — universities, government agencies, the media and even corporations — reward their grievance. Minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance.

And here we come to Judge Sotomayor's favorite such ingenuity: disparate impact. In the now celebrated Ricci case the city of New Haven, Conn., threw out a paper and pencil test that firefighters were required to take for promotion because so few minorities passed it. In other words, the test had a disparate and negative impact on minorities, so the lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci — a white male with dyslexia who worked 10 hours a day to pass the test at a high level — was effectively denied promotion because he was white. Judge Sotomayor supported the city's decision to throw out the test undoubtedly because of her commitment to disparate impact — a concept that invariably makes whites accountable for minority mediocrity."

In other words, if you are a minority, you should get a handicap advantage such that you don't have to work as hard as the more experienced or smarter individual to attain the same score or the same position. What this really says is that Sotomayor and all others, who prescribe to this philosophy, believe that, by virtue of their skin color, they do not have the mental capacity to achieve to the same level as those despicable whites! They, by their own twisted logic, their own zeal to be a victim, believe themselves inferior to other races, especially whites.

Somehow or other, I have never been under the impression that God handed out brains according to skin color. There are many Americans with skin color other than white who have achieved greatness. Maybe that is because they didn't walk around with this huge chip on their shoulder, buying into the philosophy of the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Joseph Lowry who make their living off of making their own people believe they are victims of their inferiority to whites; that their victimhood somehow entitles them to that for which they are not willing to work to achieve.

This, of course, is also the philosophy of Also Known As (AKA) Obama made apparent when he responded to "Joe the plumber" that he just wanted to "spread the wealth around a little"; in other words, take from those who have worked to get where they are (something AKA has never done and knows nothing about) and give it to those who believe they are entitled to it without working for it (which is how he got where he is); coveting that which is not theirs to covet.

This, of course, is a philosophy encouraged by Marxists in pursuit of dividing a society in such manner as to pit one group against the other instead of the various groups seeing the Marxist despot as the real danger to their freedom. Despots the world over have used this tactic to enslave the masses, including Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, and Mao.

Instead of being a melting pot as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, and as this country was for almost 200 years, we are now a pluralistic society, a society of many tribes of people, all identified along ethnic and religious lines. To this end, we have hyphenated Americans: Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, Muslim-Americans and so forth, each demanding rights specific to their tribe; rights which are not in the common good and only serve to rend the fabric of the society as a whole.

A society cannot long exist as a cohesive unit when torn in this manner. And as with other societies that have gone this route, America is rapidly devolving into warring factions where the color of your skin determines where you live, worship, work, shop, go to the doctor, and conduct your business, day to day; all while the powers that be claim that a pluralistic society should be color-blind and religiously tolerant.

When schools started teaching the concept of a pluralistic society under systems education (aka Outcomes-Based Education), back in the early 1990's, parents and researchers, knowledgeable of the concept, forewarned that this would happen. They were scoffed at, ridiculed, and called the "glass-half-full" crowd; they just didn't understand the concept of a global society!

They understood quite well the correlation of one to the other in producing a tribal society of warring factions, just as it did Yugoslavia, such that the Marxists can step in and take over with little to no resistance.

And a one-world Marxist society, by all the –isms that are part of it (communism, fascism, Nazism), is the vision of those pursuing the one-world global economy.

This is also why America must be brought to her knees, why the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be nullified and ignored, why the "global standards" (aka, higher standards) equate to third world standards, why America is being pushed, via the exporting of our economy (both industry and currency), into mediocrity and poverty.

This is also why the usurper was selected to occupy the White House, why his administration represents Marxist thought and practice, and why neither Congress nor the judiciary would or will do anything about the fact that he is not an American citizen and has no constitutional right to occupy the Oval Office.

It is telling, indeed, that a letter sent to Comrade Patty Murray, Comrade Maria Cantwell (Communist Democrat, Washington State), and Comrade Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Fascist Republican, Washington State), outlining the facts concerning the eligibility of AKA to the office of president, has not been answered.

In 1962, in a White House speech, John Kennedy stated, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

The battle is truly that of the people against a rogue government, good against evil.

We are many, they are few by comparison. All that need happen, for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

In the face of God's law, their law means nothing. In the face of God's wrath, they have no defense. In the face of God's judgment, they stand naked and exposed.

It is with God's counsel and guidance that we can and will win this battle against the forces of evil.

� 2009 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site:











Sotomayor has no more business on the Supreme Court than Daffy Duck, Pluto or Mickey Mouse. At least those three have not had 60% of their decisions overturned on appeal; a good indicator of what Sotomayor knows about the law and what consideration she gives to the rule of law when rendering decisions.