Middle America's Worldview

Here is the full length movie of the Obama Deception.

I ran across these videos while here in Texas. The initial site I found them on are Prison Planet.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer not only stopped and assaulted the driver/EMT, but there is a patient in the vehicle during the altercation. No charges were applied on the officer after a Oklahoma Judge reviewed the incident.

Here is the 8 minute video taken from the police vehicle. Note the release of the video took some time and doing (according to the article).







Here is the phone coverage of the patients family member.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Has History Of Flawed Legal Thinking
By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

May 28, 2009 – President Barack Hussein Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court has a history of liberal judicial activism and poorly reasoned decisions.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a Yale Law School graduate and currently serves on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. She has been a federal judge, a district attorney and worked in private practice. She has authored or participated in thousands of court cases over the course of her legal career. For this very reason, there needs to be a proper vetting of her extensive record, which will take some time.

Much is being made of her being the first Hispanic woman being nominated to the Supreme Court, but what many in the media are not talking about is the nomination of Miguel Estrada who was picked by President Bush to be nominated to the D.C. Circuit.

Where were all these “let’s put a Hispanic on the court” cheerleaders back then?

Democrats stalled confirmation for more than two years. In fact, Democrat memos leaked by the Wall Street Journal in 2003, showed that their strategy was to smear him as “especially dangerous.”

One of the memos described Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) “as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Hispanic legislators like New York Democrat Nydia Velazquez who heads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, opposed Estrada because of his judicial philosophy. Now, Democrats are pushing Sotomayor simply because she is Hispanic.

Estrada was well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court – and his rags-to-riches story was as compelling as Sotomayor’s. He would have been the first Hispanic on the Court, but Democrats delayed his confirmation hearing for so long, he finally withdrew his name from the running. Apparently, he wasn’t the “right kind” of Hispanic.

Who Is Sotomayor?

Sotomayor has admitted that she views the role of a judge as an activist who makes policy decisions – a role that should be limited to the executive or legislative branches of government. On a panel at Duke University Law School in 2005, she said:
All of the Legal Defense Funds out there—they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is—Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t “make law,” I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. . . . [Audience laughter]
Curt Levey with the Committee for Justice has said of Sotomayor’s taped admission:
In other words, Sotomayor believes that unelected judges like herself should be the nation’s policy-makers rather than sticking to interpretation of the law.
Wendy Long, Chief Counsel, Judicial Confirmation Network has expressed concern about Sotomayor’s legal views:
Comments yesterday by the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and today by Senator Chuck Schumer, that statements made at Duke University by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in which she said appellate courts should ‘make policy’ were taken out of context are purposely misleading and outright misinformation designed to walk back an obvious vetting problem this White House has become known for. If Mr. Gibbs or Senator Schumer were to read other law review articles written by Judge Sotomayor, her own published word, it is clear and unequivocal that Judge Sotomayor has a long track record of advocating for using courts to make policy and laws. It is obvious that the reason the White House has churned up its spin machine on this is because countless polls consistently show that the American people to do not support judges making policy or law from the bench. The American people have spoken loudly and often on this subject, they want judges who interpret law as made through the people and their elected representatives, not through judges imposing their personal political views from the bench as Judge Sotomayor has consistently advocated.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recommended Sonia Sotomayor to President Obama. He says she’s a moderate and has the most extensive record of anyone nominated to the Supreme Court in a long time. He also agrees that Republicans have every right to scrutinize her voluminous record of cases during the confirmation process.

Her legal decisions are frequently overturned by the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Rosen, writing for the liberal New Republic has said this about Sotomayor:
Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with [Sotomayor], nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats ... but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices."
Jonathan Turley, an equally liberal professor of law at George Washington University, reviewed Sotomayor's opinions and concluded:
[Her opinions] are notable in one thing, in that it's a lack of depth. There's nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. ... You can't say she's a natural choice for the Supreme Court. (MSNBC, May 26, 2009)
Badly-Reasoned Court Decisions

One of her decisions that is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court is Ricci v. DeStefano, which involves a reverse discrimination case involving firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. The firefighters were denied promotion because they were not African American. One of them was Hispanic, the rest were white. Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the city.

In this firefighter case, Frank Ricci had scored well on a 2003 firefighters test for promotion to lieutenant and captain. He had studied eight to 13 hours a day to prepare for test and had spent more than $1,000 buying books for his homework. He paid an acquaintance to read them onto audiotapes because he is dyslexic. Ricci got one of the highest scores, but did not get promoted. Why? Because it was determined that not enough blacks had done well enough to be promoted. New Haven discarded the test results and did not promote anyone.

Ricci and 17 other firefighters – including an Hispanic – filed a lawsuit against the city for wrongful discrimination. He and his fellow firefighters were denied the American dream because of Sonia Sotomayor.

As National Journal reporter and lawyer Stuart Taylor reports:
… in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep the case quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both. ... The three-judge panel initially deep-sixed the firefighters' appeal in a cursory, unpublished order that disclosed virtually nothing about the nature of the ideologically explosive case.
Interesting, during her confirmation battle this summer, the current Supreme Court is likely to overturn this decision this July as it has done in past cases involving Sotomayor’s decisions.

Among those cases the Supreme Court has rejected from Sotomayor are: N.Y. Times Co., v.Tasini; Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko; Granholm v. Heald; Merrill Lynch v. Dabit; Entery Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. and others.

Anti-Gun Nominee

Judge Sotomayor could face serious problems from Second Amendment groups. As Curt Levey has explained:
Obama's choice of one of the few federal judges with a bad record on gun rights is particularly perplexing. Earlier this year, Sotomayor and two of her Second Circuit colleagues ruled that Americans have no individual Second Amendment rights in the face of state or local regulation of firearms -- that is, unless they happen to live in the District of Columbia. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit ruled the other way. Now every red and purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be forced to explain to his constituents why he's supporting a nominee who thinks those constituents don't have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if they're drawn into the debate. Obama's selection of Sotomayor makes that virtually certain.
As Ken Blackwell said yesterday:
"President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice. There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota. These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. ... [N]ever underestimate the political power of American gun owners."