US Justice Benjamin Cardozo

by No Compromise Media

Sonia Sotomayor IS NOT the first so called Latino to sit on the United States Supreme Court.  Benjamin Cardozo, a American and Sephardic Jew in the Spanish and  Portuguese community, was confirmed to the US Supreme Court in 1932 until his death six years later.

Sotomayor claims that she can make better decisions than a white man due to her experience I wonder if she believes that Justice Cardozo made great decisions based on his experience?

Justice Cardozo was confirmed by a unanimous Senate voice vote which Sotormayor can not claim. But what they both have in common is they were both confirmed during the beginnings  of serious American depressions.  (Yes, we are going into a depression!)

According to wikipedia,

“the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association consider Sonia Sotomayor to be the first unequivocally Hispanic justice.”

Why does the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association get to define what hispanic is,  or perhaps a more interesting question might be:

Do the  National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association only see Cardozo as a Jew instead of ethnically Latino?  Why would that be?

In any event, Justice Benjamin Cardozo was ethnically a latino whose family was Sephardic Jew. Sotomayor can deny the facts which she has a history of doing, and it will be history who judges her in the end and not the  National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association!

I guess some people are more equal than others1

NC Sez:  Call your Senator everyday.  Faux-bama is filling his “transparent” administration and appointees  with tax cheats, racists, and criminals.  Americans can stop this!  

***

by Devvy Kidd

On July 15, 2009, Dr. Richard Cordero, was a guest on my radio show. Dr. Cordero has been trying to get the seventeen members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to question U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor on these issues:

1. The Committee’s questionnaire

2. Judge Sotomayor’s answers to it and her conduct

3. The docket of the DeLano case, 06-4780-bk, CA2

4. Statistics of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on the denial by the 2nd Circuit Judicial Council, of which Judge Sotomayor is a member, of 100% of petitions for review of dismissed judicial misconduct complaints during the 1 October 1996 thru 30 September 2008; a 12-year period.

Dr. Cordero expended Herculean efforts in faxing his 32-page report to every member except Franken who did not have a fax number at that time. As I said in my column, July 20, 2009, sometimes legal issues can become a bit confusing to the layman. On Congress’ better days, they have proven to be so incompetent they couldn’t boil water in Hell. However, it all comes down to this (aside from Sotomayor being judicially unqualified and a racist): Sotomayor is involved in a bankruptcy fraud scheme and she lied through omission on the questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee to cover it up.

As a result of Dr. Cordero’s efforts and the publicity generated by independent media (not by any MSM or cable media networks like FAUX, CNN, MSNBC), the full vote by the senate has been postponed. We the people have been burning up the phone lines to our U.S. Senator’s offices and in particular, Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. As of July 19, 2009, the Senate Judiciary’s web site posted the full senate vote would be July 21, 2009 at 10:00 am.

Instead of the vote taking place as scheduled, the Senate Judiciary’s official web site has now posted the full Senate will vote on July 28, 2009. This shocked me, although it shouldn’t have when it occurred to me there was no hype or buzz on Monday, July 20, 2009, about the full vote for the next day. Here is an email I received yesterday from an American who cares enough to take the time to climb in the face of these public servants:

“I just spoke with a lady in Senator Session’s office. She was very pleasant, but lacked helpful information; obviously well versed in political carousel-speak.

“She said the vote was postponed until all written questions were adequately addressed, which apparently they aren’t. I asked if the DeLano case was one of the questions on which they were awaiting answers. She said they were well aware of the case, had reviewed it extensively, but didn’t know if it was one of the questions, if answered, that was being reviewed. She did say that she would pass my “concerns” along to the Senator.

“I don’t like carousels. They make me dizzy.” (Name withheld for privacy)

This is quite revealing. First, Sessions and the other six Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee (as well as the 12 Democrats) know Dr. Cordero’s allegations are now out there. All of them have been sitting on the evidence since July 3, 2009.

Second, Leaky Leahy was hot to push the full vote through two days ago. Abruptly the vote is rescheduled. Why? Because all the written questions Sotomayor was supposed to address in the 173 page submission to the committee were not addressed. We know Sotomayor lied through omission by hiding the DeLano case because it would expose her participation in the fraud. Leahy wanted to push the vote through anyway, but was stopped.

Here’s the bottom line:

Enough Americans have been calling these senators with a demand the vote be stopped and Dr. Cordero’s evidence (not speculation) be examined.

Sessions can simply pick up the phone, call Dr. Cordero and get him to Washington, DC with his boxes of evidence. These senators have their own lawyers to assist with complicated legal matters. Get them all into a hearing room with Dr. Cordero and go through the evidence.

Dr. Cordero will be a guest on Jeff Rense Radio, Monday, July 27, 2009. If those of us in the “alternative” media can find Dr. Cordero, certainly the aides in these senator’s offices can do the same. Dr. Cordero is waiting and willing to speak to these senators in person.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Sotomayor has been a willing participant in a judicially run and tolerated bankruptcy fraud scheme. There is no hesitation on my part when I say that if given all the evidence, a grand jury would indict not only Sotomayor, but several other federal judges involved in this fraud. This is a major scandal that has gone unchecked, but must be stopped. Integrity and honesty in our judiciary must be of the highest priority.

If the senate votes and confirms Sotomayor, I will send a letter with the evidence to several U.S. Attorney’s in this country demanding a full investigation. This isn’t going away. Confirming a Justice to the United States Supreme Court is one of the most important functions of the U.S. Senate. We the people are fed up with politics and all the back room games. Sonia Sotomayor must be investigated and the matter referred to a federal grand jury, not confirmed to the high court.

I would ask again: Please keep the heat on the U.S. Senate. Call your U.S. Senator every day from now until the scheduled vote this coming Tuesday. We have already won a delay, now we go for the jugular.

If your senator is unfamiliar with what is going on behind the scenes, ask them to contact Dr. Richard Cordero or Sen. Jeff Sessions office. Better yet would be to fax a short letter to your senator and with this letter from Dr. Cordero to Sen. Al Franken. Just the first three pages which will give your senator a good over view of why Sotomayor must be investigated as well as the other federal judges. Dr. Cordero’s contact information is at the top of that letter so your senator can’t say, “Gee, I didn’t know how to contact him.”

We can stop the vote, but it will take YOU to make that phone call and/or fax.

No one is above the law. Not for politics or to appease voting blocks of certain ethnic groups.

Links:

1 - Dr. Richard Cordero’s web site
2 - Sotomayer Overlooks All 14
Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases

White House Leaks Story of Obama’s Kenyan Birth

by Ron Russell

Unidentified sources inside the White House are quietly revealing, what has just been a rumor up until this time, that Obama may have indeed been born in Kenya. It is believed that these revelations are coming now, as a result of the ongoing effort by some groups to get the original copy of his birth certificate made public. At this moment the complete details are sketchy, but some details are emerging. It now appears that Ann Dunham (Mrs Barack Hussein Obama, Sr) had returned to Kenya with her husband of only 6 month in mid-July of 1961 to meet members of his Kenyan family.

It is thought that while on this visit Ann Dunham learned of Obama seniors earlier marriage to a woman named Kezia in 1954 and that the two were the parents of four children. According to White House sources Ann, distraught and shaken leaves the senior Obama and goes to the nearby capital city of Nairobi and fearing for her life at that time seeks refuse at the American Embassy there. At first the embassy officials were somewhat reluctant to admit the young wife, but upon hearing her story of the death threats leveled at her by the family of Kezia, Barack seniors true wife they decide to give the young obviously pregnant girl asylum in the embassy. According to recently released embassy records the embassy was over-flowing with American nationals at that particular time due to a sharp spike in black nationalist activities directed at whites in the country. Because of over-crowding in the embassy proper, Ann was given shelter in a small shed in the rear of the embassy, a shed formerly reserved for livestock. The livestock had been removed several months before. It was in this former stable, that Ann unexpectedly gives birth to Barack Hussein Obama II, the current President of the United States. The anonymous sources at the White House are quick to point out two things: first, President Obama was born on American soil (U.S. Embassy grounds are considered under international agreements to be part of the United States); second, the ONE was born in a stable (the source was quick to emphasize this fact) for what reason we are not sure! Finally the issue is settled, Obama was born on American soil with his humble beginnings in a stable—the message here well I’ll leave that to you!

This Gives You A National Voice Against Obama

by Andy Martin
 

(NEW YORK)(June 1, 2009) This is a difficult column for me to write. As a man of the 60’s, my views on sexual morality are definitely liberal. With age has come tolerance. I passionately believe in an expansive personal right to privacy. You can read my blogs and won’t find anything on the gay marriage brouhaha. I have stayed away from the controversy because of close friends on both sides of the divide.

NC asks:  Tolerance?  I’m sick and tired of this redefined word.  Why not call it what it really is?  Acceptance for something abnormal, normal people see as disgusting behavior,  by people who want to mask their shame through demanding others to accept it hoping the shame will go away

 The media and politicians have been focused on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial decisions. They may be looking in the wrong place for an insight into her character and disposition.

NC points outs:  Ya think?  Let’s see:  La Raza, bath houses, communist training camps called ivy league universities . . . .

 My personal views and reluctance to write about sexual identity have to yield to the political reality that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been living a carefully orchestrated secret life. Her personal life, particularly the concealed aspects of her life, bear on her fitness for the Supreme Court and reflect an invisible bias that will undoubtedly affect her voting on issues such as gay marriage.

NC Sez:  Good, I’m glad there is a lib out there willing to admit to this fact!

 The bestselling novel “Advise and Consent” by Allen Drury was based on the secret sexuality of a U. S. Senator. Ms. Sotomayor could be heading towards a similar “Advise and Consent” moment.

NC Sez: yeah, but they media will never go there, so us bloggers have to go there and scoop the Obamamediacorp!

 Before getting into the particulars of our investigation we start with the obvious fact that “sexuality” is not a state; sexuality is manifested as a continuum of human behavior and orientation. None of us is either completely heterosexual or completely homosexual. One set of genes and or conditions usually predominate; then there are those whose sexuality is ambiguous because their personal makeup is ambiguous or balanced.

NC Sez:  Whatever! They call this kind of “science”,  post modern science in post-america!  I am a proud heterosexual and there is NOT one drop of homo in me and most of America! This kind of idiotic statement is code for manipulating ” YOU to accept what once was called a mental illness”

 There are three reasons why repressed or suppressed sexuality or closeted social behavior can be critical to a public employee, especially a Supreme Court justice.

Read the rest of this entry »

NC sez: It’s truly amazing that when fascists bring someone like Sotomayor to public light how many people can come to the same conclusions!  Paul Williams actually confirms what I said in my earlier post. Great minds think alike! 

by Paul Williams

Sure, President Obama’s appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is blatantly racist. Few dispute this fact, even members of the Hispanic community.

The smiling senorita was chosen simply because she is a Latina. If Sotomayor had been a lily-white Methodist from Minnesota, she would not have received the slightest chance for consideration.

Her gender also serves to affirm the patronizing nature of Obama’s appointment.

Strange to say, the mass media is applauding the president’s appointment not because of Sotomayor’s judicial acumen, let alone her rather abysmal courtroom record, but rather because of the fact that she is brown and from the Bronx barrio.

Few commentators note that 60% of Sotomayor’s rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court – - a fact, as Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, notes that should cause legislators to “pause and take a good look at her record.”

But a good look at her judicial record is secondary to the good look at her Puerto-Rican ancestry.

Read the rest of this entry »

‘Empathy‘ versus law

By Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

Justice David Souter’s retirement from the Supreme Court presents President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to appoint someone to the High Court. People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever, are missing the point.
That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.
That President Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.
Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans.
We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.
Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.
Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people and nation”? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.
He was just another German chancellor at the time. He was not elected on a platform of war, dictatorship or genocide. He got the power to do those things because of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people.”
When you buy words, you had better know what you are buying.
In the American system of government, presidential term limits restrict how long any given resident of the White House can damage this country directly. But that does not limit how long, or how much, the people he appoints to the Supreme Court can continue to damage this country, for decades after the president who appointed them is long gone.
Justice John Paul Stevens virtually destroyed the Constitution’s restrictions on government officials’ ability to confiscate private property in his 2005 decision in the case of “Kelo v. New London”- 30 years after President Ford appointed him.
The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues- whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law- what has been called “a government of laws and not of men.”
Under the American system of government, this cannot be done overnight or perhaps even during the terms in office of one president- but it can be done. And it can be done over time by the appointees of just one president, if he gets enough appointees.
Some people say that who Barack Obama appoints to replace Justice Souter doesn’t really matter, because Souter is a liberal who will probably be replaced by another liberal. But, if no one sounds the alarm now, we can end up with a series of appointees with “empathy”- which is to say, with justices who think their job is to “relieve the distress” of particular groups, rather than to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

TR:  You knew this was coming, folks.  Hopenchange! – Identity politics at its worst.  No actual change except for its depth of contempt.  Since Faux-bama is a bona-fide Usurper of POTUS, is his Latina pick for SCOTUS not illegitimate?  And mustn’t she recuse herself from adjudicating The One’s own illegal status, as not being a Natural Born Citizen??

Sotomayor – Obama’s Latino Strategy Revealed

By Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax.com

Aztlan Returns!

President Barack Obama’s selection of Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court underscores his full-court-press “Latino strategy.”

Fox Newshost Geraldo Rivera said Monday morning that Sotomayor’s choice will make the Hispanic community “elated.” Of course, he’s right.

Obama’s political strategists also are elated.

The Sotomayor choice should be viewed through the prism of Obama’s presidential quest in 2008, as well as in view of his plans for re-election in 2012.

Obama’s Achilles’ heel – and Republicans need to reflect on this – is the Hispanic vote.

During the heated Democratic primary with Hillary Clinton, Obama lost every state with a large Latino population. Hillary carried the Hispanic Democratic vote overwhelmingly.

By getting supermajorities of Hispanics, Hillary won every large state primary – with the exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.

What happened in Illinois is also instructive for background on the Sotomayor choice.

Exit polls taken during the Democratic primary there showed that Hispanics in Illinois went for Obama by 52 percent. Considering that Hillary had conceded the state to Obama – and she had put no resources there – Obama’s paltry victory was even more astounding considering he had been the state’s popular Democratic senator and well known to Hispanic voters there.

Clearly, Hispanic voters preferred the conservative Democratic choice, Hillary. Even after he was “anointed” the winner by the major media, Hispanics continued to vote in droves for Hillary who took the Democratic contest all the way to the end of the primary season.

While Obama went on to win Hispanic voters nationwide in his general election contest with John McCain – Obama won the Latino vote by 67 percent to McCain’s 31 percent – he has to recognize that the Latino vote remains a major vulnerability for him.

A large crossover of Hispanic voters to the GOP in the 2004 election cost John Kerry the presidency and gave George W. Bush a second term. While McCain received just 31 percent in 2008, Bush snagged an amazing 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.

Obama can’t let that happen again if he wants to remain in the White House.

This is why he is not only selecting Sotomayor, but also moving aggressively on issues such as giving amnesty to illegal aliens. Estimates place the number of illegal aliens in the nation at over 12 million.

Obama has stated he wants to put them on the “path to citizenship” as soon as he can – and he has promised legislation this year that will make that happen.

He wants to not only win over Latino voters with such a move, but also create a new supermajority for the Democratic voters.

Even if his plans to help illegals get citizenship yields 500,000 new voters by 2012, he and his party will likely have a lock on the White House for another term. But in all likelihood, he can add millions of new Hispanic voters to the election rolls over the next few years.

For the moment Senate Republicans need to tread carefully in attacking Sotomayor, the first Latino Supreme Court nominee. Attacks on her will redound in Obama’s favor, increasing his chances to win in 2012.

As liberal as she is, save a major scandal, Republicans will likely need to hold their noses and avoid a street brawl over her nomination.

Instead, Republicans need a strategy to counter Obama’s, which is viewed positively by the Hispanic vote. Hispanics are key for Obama and the Democrats, but they are also key for the Republicans – if they want to avoid being a minority party for a generation.

TR:  A bit more than a Freudian slip here..   Ya Know..

In our attempt to protect our country, we, Patriots,  have to be very careful which Bills we object to,  and which Bills we support. For example, in the case of HR 985.  This piece of legislation will protect reporters who, in the course of their job as a journalist,  stumble on any information for their story, that is also needed in a criminal case or investigation. It will also protect the media outlet.

Americans need the free flow of Information

This is also called a shield law,  which have been around for several decades now.  In the past, the High Court rappelled with how to balance First Amendment protection for news gathers while protecting them at the same time when they gathered sources and information in a criminal case.  Basically, this bill claims it will protect the information reporters are gathering which is NOT a bad thing.  If a reporter believes they might be prosecuted if they secure certain information, like in the Watergate debacle, they might not go forward with their reporting if their liberty is at stake. This fear puts a chill on practicing the First Amendment and THAT is not acceptable in a supposed free country! 

The problem Americans have today is that American media no longer subscribes to the once held ethic, “People have a RIGHT to know.”  99% of the reporters are biased, liberal and Marxist and will PROTECT their sources and information if it means their “political man”  will be held accountable for a crime he committed!   Most reporters lost all neutrality in this last election and Congress has proven time and time again, that they can not be trusted!  And from the Citizen perspective, this is a legitimate fear.

Currently there is enough protection for reporters, their sources,  and their information, since information comes from sources,  and America simply does not need another shield law. We have enough laws on our books!   I will object to this law on that ground!  

Verdict is . . .

By the way, bloggers are not mentioned in this bill which is alarming since many bloggers are news gatherers these days.  << if anyone needs protecting these days it’s bloggers!  

Call your Senate Slugs demanding they vote NO on HR 985! 

HR 985, the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2009”   which was introduced in House, will 

In any matter arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to provide testimony or produce any document related to information obtained or created by such covered person as part of engaging in journalism, unless a court determines by a preponderance of the evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to such covered person

What is a covered person?

The term `covered person’ means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.