Middle America's Worldview

This 19 minute video discusses how the groundwork is already put in place to have the antichrist be on the scene. This video covers that groundwork in place, as well as discussing the peace treaty, in place but not confirmed.

Check out the video.
http://mcole.us/?p=731

Brannon House and Dr. Jimmy Deyoung discusses the Rise of Rome, the continuing Babylon religion and genesis of Easter. This is very interesting for those into Biblical prophecy as it relates to current happenings.

http://mcole.us/?p=727

United States has changed along with technology. I "woke up" about a year ago, and I radically see what is happening much different than the prism of before.

In the famous movie Matrix Morpheus said it well, "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself."

This holds true for all of us. Each of us view a situation through our own eyes and experience. One cannot make the other view it, rather we can influence each other how we see things.

I think this is the most powerful weapon each individual has, regarding our influence for each other. That being said, I wish more of us were speaking out against the continual attack against our freedoms, the forefathers fought so hard for us.

There is yet another bill to diminish those freedoms in the United States, that will be voted on soon.S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act Bill, "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield," Lindsey Graham (who supports this bill).

Think about that for a moment. Most understood the homeland was no longer safe, but in a law, will now be considered a battlefield? What does this bill actually do?

"One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved," Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech earlier this month.

Other representatives are concerned for this bill to be put into effect as well.

However, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is "carefully crafted to mislead the public."
"Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary," Amash wrote on his Facebook page.


This is nothing new, to have a suppose reason for change, but turn it on its own American citizens. Yet, it does seem to be progressively getting faster and more in your face.


The Richmond Register is also following a story, where the fourth amendment is being abused, but having military and police using current GPS technology on suspected persons. The argument is to have GPS placed on any person of interest in order to track their whereabouts (on public roads). Within the article it is summed up very well, by one of the Supreme judges questions to the lawyer.

"... if you win this case then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States," Breyer said.

Dreeben did not agree.
                                                        -------------------------------------------
 
Of course he did not disagree. We as United States Citizens are being attacked on all sides, to remove freedom and our rights. Yet, only a few see this Matrix being built, while others worry about frivolous matters of entertainment.

                                                        ----------------------------------------------


You can find more information and articles at http://mcole.us

Sources retrieved from
http://www.prisonplanet.com/yes-americans-will-be-targeted-as-terrorists-under-the-ndaa.html

S1867 Bill
Source retrieved from
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.1867:

Richmond Register
Source retrieved from
http://richmondregister.com/localnews/x1938326664/Supreme-Court-hears-GPS-use-argument

Five possible Zeta members have been caught in Chicago, Illinois police dragnet.

Los Zetas is the Mexican drug cartel, known to be the second most powerful cartel in Mexico. Their  criminal activities include extortion, kidnapping, international illegal drug trades, and assassinations.

The cartel is supposedly led by Heriberto Lazcano. The groups occupiers include Mexican Army Special forces, as well as corrupt federal, state and local police officers.

In a recent sting, five of the Zeta members were part of 20 suspects found in Chicago, Illinois by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  During 2010, more than $12.4 million cash and up to 250 kilograms of cocaine were acquired in Chicago area alone. Personally, this author thinks its only a small known percentage.

If convicted, 12 defendants face a mandatory minim of 10 years to a maximum life in prison. A $10 million fine is also attached.

The trail of trafficking appears to be between Nuevo Laredo and Chicago Illinois. The contraband of drugs, money, ect is transported from Mexico and United States.

Personally, if this is going on, no telling what else is being transferred illegally between the nations.


Find more interesting stories and updates at http://mcole.us


Source retrieved from
http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/five-los-zetas-members-caught-chicago-police-dragnet

Testing the body

New life is in play regarding Barry Soetoro’s (AKA: Barack Obama) birth certificate again. Recently Chris Matthews brought it up again on MSNBC. The 7 minute discussion can be viewed here.
The Washington Post had inquired in April on this subject. The poll shows 20% says no, 23% says I don’t know; with the remaining 58% believe Obama was born on U.S. soil. After 2 years of presidency, 43% does not believe, has no clue (or doesn’t care).

I have already posted some information on this subject, found here, and here. However, some additional points need to be brought up on this discussion.

It is my opinion Chris Matthews believes Barry was born in United States, hence asking for it all to be put to a rest, by providing the birth certificate (not a receipt). A simple question the so-called birthers have been asking for over 2 years. Some have even sued DNC for the original birth certificate when Obama was still in the Senate. This request and becoming issue had not started during Obama’s presidency. Rather this same concern has only come into additional light as he flew into the White House to be President.
Note these external quick links to the story back in 2008.

Hillary Clinton supporter files lawsuit:.

The DNC came in to silence the lawsuit, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083

Rather than providing the certificate in the beginning, Obama goes on the offense and hires a terrorist associated attorney (Joseph E. Sandler), which caused even more issues asking about his ties with terrorist.

Another source to the questionable ties.

Chris Matthews goes onto to name calling (to show he’s really not a birther), but again brings up the point, why not present the document to squash all the conspiracy.

One of the guest doesn’t answer the why, but expands on the “it would take a real conspiracy from birth to fake it, only to put him in the white house.” Well, that’s a stupid answer, considering the issue of illegal immigration we have. Many immigrants come here for our benefits. Simply having a child on our soil will provide more benefits to the immigrant than presented in their own countries. This is a fact, not a conspiracy. A logical statement would be to have a child on U.S. soil for the benefits, rather than a long-term conspiracy for a President.

The argument of Barack being too busy is also an idiot reply. They guy is filling in positions within the Federal Government now, as if it’s a ship about to leave a volcanic island. One additional position to squash this concern would not be too much of a reach. If he has the idea to ignore it (so it doesn’t give it value), then he again is mistaken. This will only continue, and rise as his approval ratings drops.

The belief the "birthers" will not believe even if the legal certificate is presented is an opinion not a fact. Some will not believe, but what about those 23% having no clue? Should the President not provide the information to those 23%? I say he should, if nothing else to support his base. Matthews brings this up as well. The receipt is not enough information, nor the actual document.

So why not present the real authentic birth certificate? I suspect two things. I suspect it doesn’t exist (since the unwillingness to present it), and Barry is being used by some group.
Discussion has already been made in detail regarding the document not existing. However, discussion of Barry being used has not.
A group using Barry to push their agenda for America might be in play. Someone is writing those speeches for Barry and he refuses to give one, without a prompter. He was the first U.S. President to use one in Indian Parliament.

Barry used one even to discuss to school children.

This makes our president a good reader, but not a good speaker.

If Barry is being used, with his ratings lower than any president before and the republicans coming into power, his usefulness is about empty. We should be seeing Barry tore down even more and cast aside. The DNC came to assist him during his run for presidency. However, all will move away from him, as he is being dismantled. Some will cheer, simply because they do not like him or his politics. This shadow president is nothing more than a puppet being pulled by strings. The hatred is thrown at him, while the real engineers are hiding in the shadows. As he is cast aside, another puppet will be brought into the stadium, while the agenda push continues. We need to send the light to the engineers hiding in the shadows, rather than focusing on the puppet.

Federal money has been issued to create “Fusion Centers” across the United States. The centers attempt to enhance communication between state, local, and federal departments. The story was released at Info Wars discussing Tennessee Watch List putting the ACLU on the terror list. http://www.infowars.com/tennessee-fusion-center-puts-aclu-on-terror-list/ ACLU posted an article regarding “What is wrong with fusion centers”. This may be the reason why they are put on the list. Source: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-fusion-centers-executive-summary

According to the report, Chattanooga Free Press reported Tennessee anti-terrorism officials placed the legislative lobbying organization on an internet map dealing “terrorism events and other suspicious activities”. There are 58 reported fusion centers across the states Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/

The map is found at http://www.globalincidentmap.com/ .
What is odd of this supposedly terrorist map, it also shows political activities and state legislations regarding “illegal alien activities”. What state legislation has to do with illegal alien actives is not known. However, if the fusion centers are placing political groups and state legislations on the map under terror concerns, every American citizen should be concerned. This type of activity is the same we seen in the 60’s and 70’s under ‘red squads’.

“Red Squads were police intelligence units that specialize in infiltrating, conducting counter-measures and gathering intelligence on political and social groups during the twentieth century. Dating as far back as the Haymarket Riot in 1886, Red Squads became common in larger cities such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles during the First Red Scare of the 1920s. They were set up as specialized units of city police departments, as a weapon against labor unions, communists, anarchists, and other dissidents.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_squad.

We as a society wish to perpetuate empathy to all manner of characteristics including those individuals who cannot feel compassion for others.

The hit show “Dexter” revolves around a Miami forensic specialist who specializes in blood splatter, moonlighting as a serial killer. The character can feel neither emotions nor empathy for anyone around him, because of a tragic event at an early age. As the story develops, the audience learns more of the character as Dexter unravels why he cannot feel anything. We as the audience are drawn into the storyline as empathetic viewers for this unsettling character, as he journeys to find himself and his place in our society. The adopted father, who is a police officer, shows his son how to hide his killings and monstrous characteristics. Doing it so well, Dexter becomes a vigilante type serial killer, his own sister cannot even see.

Personally I am always more fascinated with character driven shows and movies, I find this show even more fascinating due to the fans falling in love with a serial killer. The show began in 2006 on the pay channel ShowTime. The show continues to get top ratings and provides Showtime its first or second most watched show. According to Nielson Co., a total of 1.8 million viewers turned in to view the season premier of Season 5, whereas another 575,000 watched the rebroadcast at 11 p.m., for the same night. This brings season fives premier of Dexter a total of 2.3 million viewers in one night.

The audience of Dexter actually shows empathy for the serial killer as he draws us into his world. The definition of empathy is “identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives”. We walk with Dexter to learn as he does how be becomes an unfeeling monster with compulsions to kill. His release of killing begins on animals as a child, and moves toward humans as he matures. The father, with a feeling of need takes him in and tries to protect his mentally challenged adopted son the only way he knows how. As the story unfolds, the father becomes sickened in what he has created. The audience empathy comes to Dexter, as this character does not understand why he has these compulsions, but also cannot help but release them. So Dexter releases them on other monsters in our society. This self given idea of moral justice provides him a means to live in our society. The audience understands these parameters set by his code of ethics. The storyline still puts Dexter in dilemmas of choice to follow his code of ethics or break them. The audience is given a ride of emotion, because consequences are made regardless of the provided set of chosen ethics.

Tonight we watched Obama address the cadets of West Point and, over their shoulder, the American people. I kept asking myself: if I were in the audience did I hear anything worth risking my life for?

There is a lot in Afghanistan worth risking one's life for, but Obama sure didn't summon it.

Watching President Obama address the nation, the right probably recognized the incongruity of sending additional troops on a difficult mission and setting, at the same time, a very short timetable for their withdrawal. The right doubtless wondered why the Taliban won't just wait Obama out and move in after he leaves.

But the political cost of this speech will not come on the right. Obama will get the support of everyone who won't ever vote for him. But it is with his base on the left that he will be in trouble.

His volunteers, his backers, his donors have to have watched that speech and asked themselves "why did we win the election?" Obama sounded just like Bush. More articulate, perhaps, but substantively precisely the same.

His decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, an odd move for a peace candidate, his failure to close Guantanamo, our continued military presence in Iraq, and his failure to act on liberal priorities like gays in the military and immigration reform, are all sapping his support from those who voted for him.
For those with memories of Vietnam, the task of backing a corrupt regime summons the most unpleasant of comparisons.

Obama looked out of place giving a speech he didn't believe in. He seemed like he was reading a communiqué. His focus on pulling out, even as he was going in, reminded one of Bill Clinton defining what the meaning of 'is' is.

This speech will inflame the left and that is the real threat to Obama's base.

Even in the health care debate, the under 30 voters are learning that they are targeted -- just like the elderly -- for special punishment in Obama's health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5% of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8% of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12% if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic.

Then he is losing popularity on issues that have nothing to do with ideology. It all begins with unemployment. While voters still believe by 50-42 (Rasmussen) that Bush is more at fault than Obama for the economy, Bush is not on the ballot. The high jobless rate nurtures a belief that Obama doesn't really know what he is doing. This discontent need not take the form of ideological opposition to the stimulus package or the deficit spending. It can merely be a sense that things aren't going right.

And then come the adjectives. Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs, and seems egotistical.

All polls have Obama below 50 and some, like Harris, have him all the way down to 43% in job approval. These surveys mean that Obama, who won 52% of the vote, is now losing between one in ten and one in five of his voters.

This erosion of support makes the elections of 2010 look more and more like a rerun of 1994. It is now reasonable to predict -- and I do -- that the GOP will take both houses of Congress.

In the Senate, the Republicans are likely to hold all their vacant seats with the possible exception of New Hampshire. Incumbent Democrats Dodd (Ct), Specter (Pa), Lincoln (Ark), Reid (Nev), and Bennett (Col) are the low hanging fruit. Among the open seats, Delaware seems ripe for the Republicans. Add to these six seats, two more if Rudy Giuliani challenges Kristin Gillibrand in New York and if North Dakota governor Hoeven takes on Dorgan. Mark Kirk could the ninth pickup in Illinois. And, in a Republican sweep, you have to respect GOP chances in California and New Jersey.

A deluge swamps all boats.

On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lock-step, over the cliff together.

When one considers where Obama was only a year ago and where he is today, the fall is simply stunning. That he clings to the staff that helped him take it is amazing. This has to be the least successful White House since, well, Clinton's 1993-94 crowd. In fact, its many of the same people!

You can read all Dick Morris articles or signup for free email notifications at DickMorris.com.

I have long been a skeptic of manmade global warming. They lost me when we learned not only was Earth suppose to be warming but the entire solar system. Sun rays anyone?

Nevertheless, some information is now being leaked out confirming some suspicions.

Independent Examiner has a really good article on the subject.

I also recall the youtube videos showing those 'temp gauges' located in the most bizarre places. Unfortunately, i cannot recall the guy that was showing those false reading.

Some are calling for Obama to call off the Copenhagen for climate talk. I must say, I would at least take pause.

Consider this. There must be trillions if not billions of dollars invested in these studies. Now if the studies are false, then we are looking at a serious issue, both with the money as well as the credibility of the science groups. Those same science groups stating they dumped the raw data, does not help.

Either way, a open investigation needs to be taken immediately.

Wow, this one hit the head, yet was funny.

Not surprisingly the votes were in for proceeding with the health care debacle. They passed with 60, barely. All democrats voted yes, and all but one republican voted no (Voinovich (R-OH) did not vote).

You can see it here.

Some of the dem's are making such statements as

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation's health care system for all Americans rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away," Lincoln said just before 2:30 p.m. Saturday. "It is not what people sent us here to do."

It sounds good, but realistically she is just one vote in a room full of others. If Blanche Lincoln wanted to make a change, she would have voted a no, when it was her time to do so. imho

There is a growing group of people that are tired of statements, and are starting to really see how public officers are voting. Lincoln was one of the very few in the spot light. Her vote was being watched by all the political stations, as well as our constituents. I fear she made the wrong call.

Another quote from Lincoln, "First of all, it was very important to the people of Arkansas that we do take our time, and I respect that," Lincoln said in a Saturday interview. "After our town hall meetings, I really felt a real passion and a strength among Arkansans. They want us to do the right thing and taking our time and doing that and making sure that we're not rushing through these things."

Yes, seems Lincoln is still not on the same page with Arkansans regarding the 'right thing'.

With her poll numbers dropping

her approval rating back home has dropped 11 points and now stands at 43 percent, 1 percentage point above Obama’s in the state, according to a University of Arkansas poll released earlier this month. And by a 9-point margin, a clear plurality of voters in Arkansas opposes the public insurance option like the one included in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan, the poll found.

So, if the clear majority does not wish this type of insurance bill, why bring it on the floor at all? Why is she like all blue-dog dem's committing political suicide?

I have always been fascinated with Biblical prophecy. A myriad of books written more than 2000 years ago (at least ), with no prophecies being wrong so far. Albeit, the latter ones haven't occurred yet, but the season is definitely here.

With the 2012 movie out, there is a renewed interest in general prophecy. Most are focusing on the Mayan calendar, or Nostradamus. However, I would urge all to read up on biblical prophecy.

One of the biblical prophecies most agree with is the oncoming of a world goverment, with one world currency. The scene is the Antichrist having control of the world. One of these means is by having control of money/supplies.


"13:16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 13:17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name" (Revelation 13:16-17 KJV)

In order for the above to occur, you must have at least 2 things in place.
1) a currency all are utilizing
2) a means to store and identify every transaction

The mark is subject for another time. However, a simple individual chip would suffice having your identity. A central database would also be used.

The thing I am looking at here is the one world government with one world currency.
Remember, Revelation was written over 2000 years ago, on the island of Patmos.

Check out these two videos from Fox News (Glenn Beck) having analyst speaking of the upcoming world government, and world currency.

Representive Rogers make a strong stance against the Obama Healthcare plan.



Glad to see someone has the gonad's to speak up about it.

Wow, too much going on regarding this new U.S. Administration.

Admin says other news outlets "Don't play with Fox".


White House to Isolate Fox News

I like many others before me struggle with the idea of moving off an existing platform onto a new one.

Although, I have utilized Blogger for a few years, I have made the decision to move onto a new website http://mcole.us

It will allow me to modify, add, ect. more than a simple blogging platform.

I request my 5 readers to follow me over. : )

Been quite awhile before I blogged. Been busy on a new SQL class, completed my Perl class (passed).

We are also busy with the kids sports. Daughters in Basketball and son with Soccer, busy busy.

I also been spending some time creating a new website for my platform. This will help me have a one stop launch to the other sites/apps, I use. I was on 3 games for facebook but cut back to only one. Amazing how much time is wasted on those games.

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."