Its doesn’ matter whether its, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin or anybody who doesn’t agree with obama perceived foney utopia based on frankie the communitst, billy ayers the terrorist or reve wright the I hate america radical. If it don’t fall in obama way then he sends his thugs. it time to stop this illegal welfare. We have elbows also. See you Sept 12,2009 in Washington DC for the Anti-Tax Rally specially made especially for the obama clan, reid and Peloski.

My understanding is that he is going to provide testimony at the confirmation hearings. He will undoubtedly be cross examined on that testimony. I don’t really see what the issue is here… his testimony is being pre-emptively cross examined in the blogosphere… big deal.

What makes anyone think they’d spare a second on Ricci?

---

 To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
      - Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”

…by the Ivy League/Berkeley/Hollywood* crowd that PFAW represents.

If I were Chris Dodd, I wouldn’t be too thrilled at the sight of a sympathetic constituent of mine being pilloried by the kinds of folks that have made MoveOn.org, Daily Kos and Huffington Post the nasty forces in public life that they are. If I were Rob Simmons, I’d be overjoyed.

Sounds as if Chris Dodd, David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel might have to get their folks in line.

Okay that’sa little extreme, but lets not forget that Ricci had a severe learning disability. It prevented him from obtaining professional jobs and only aced the test by having the study materials read to him. He spent thousands of his own money to get someone to help him pass the test despite his earning disability.

So, they are picking on a disabled person.

And yes, Simmons must be overjoyed. T

People for the American Way is apparently spearheading this completely un-American campaign to destroy the reputation of an American citizen who had the temerity to demand the restoration of his violated constitutional civil liberties.

The Republican judiciary committee lead Senator, needs to tell the Dems to get someone who hasn’t been overruled 60% of the time. PERIOD. Watch the fur fly,

Are the Dems going to demand we acquiesce to any wise Latina or someone qualified?
About time we demand someone who is qualified regardless of the ABA Obamaite crony endorsements.

Mr. Ricci’s background does not matter one iota. He had standing to bring the claim. That is all that matters. The law does not permit discrimination on the basis of race. The victim’s prior conduct is not a defense and certainly does not give a court license to thumb its nose at 141 years of precedent and sanction illegal discrimination. Judge Sotomayor does not have the integrity or character to be a federal judge at any level if she does not quickly and publicly disavow this travesty.

The Miranda decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is a liberal icon and often held up by them as a golden example of the good that a courageous and proactive court can do. Remember, Miranda held that a confession is inadmissible into evidence against an accused unless, after being first informed that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, the accused knowingly and voluntarily waives those rights before he confesses.

Miranda’s case was reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court which found no error and the U.S. Supreme Court which held that the only error was to admit the confession into evidence. There is not a scintilla of evidence that he was coerced in any way or that his confession was not fully voluntary. Miranda’s attorneys never claimed otherwise.

Following PFAW reasoning in the Ricci case, they must also believe that Miranda was wrongly decided because Mr. Miranda was a “bad” person. To bring this home to the good people at PFAW, we need to remind them of Mr. Miranda’s crime.

“The facts, as they relate to the defense as charged under Counts I and II in the instant case are as follows: On March 3, 1963, the complaining witness-a girl eighteen years of age-had been working in the concession stand at the Paramount Theatre in downtown Phoenix, and had taken the bus to 7th Street and Marlette. After getting off the bus, she had started to walk toward her home. She observed a car, which afterwards proved to be [Miranda’s], which had been parked behind the ballet school on Marlette. The car pulled out of the lot, and came so close to her that she had to jump back to prevent being hit. It then parked across from some apartments in the same block. [Miranda] then left his car, walked toward her, and grabbed her. He told her not to scream, that he would not hurt her. He held her hands behind her back, put a hand over her mouth, and pulled her toward the car. He put her in the back seat, tied her hands and feet, and put a sharp thing to her neck and said to her ‘Feel this.’ She stated it all happened so suddenly that she did not have time to do anything. [Miranda] was unknown to the complaining witness. She had not seen him before, and he was not related to her in any way.

He then drove the car for about twenty minutes, during which time complaining witness was lying in the back seat crying. When [Miranda] stopped the car, he came to the back seat, and untied her hands and feet. He told her to pull off her clothes. She said ‘no,’ whereupon he started to remove them. She tried to push away from him, but he proceeded to remove her clothing. And, then, after one unsuccessful attempt, made a successful sexual penetration, while she pushed with her hands and was screaming. She testified: ‘I was pushing against him with my hands. I kept screaming, I was trying to get away but he was a lot stronger than I was, and I couldn’t do anything.’

He then drove her to 12th Street and Rose Lane, during which time she dressed. She ran home, and told her family, who called the police. Her sister testified that the complaining witness came home that morning crying and looking as if she had been in a fight. On March 13, 1963, [Miranda] was apprehended by the police. The officers who picked him up both testified that he was put into the ‘line-up’ and was identified by complaining witness. Thereafter he confessed that he had forced complaining witness into his car, drove away with her, and raped her. After these statements he signed a statement, partly typed and partly in his own handwriting, which was substantially to the same effect as the testimony of the officers. [Miranda] offered no evidence in his defense at the trial of his case.”

State v. Miranda, 98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721 (1965).

Just because the man sought to have his rights under the Constitution preserved and happened to run across the wrong judge along the way to the Supreme Court, he will go under the media microscope. His taxes, his past jobs, every parking ticket will be fair game.

The Huff Po’s and Kos’ of the world will do what they’re going to do. But any “news” organization that participates in any smear of Ricci should be boycotted and any Senator that does the same should be targeted.

Sotomayor and Obama both should let it be known that Ricci is off limits. Yeah, I know, dream on.

The fact that McClatchey wrote their article exposing the call that went out to “get Ricci,” instead of actually going after Ricci, tells us that even liberals are disgusted by such action.

No one will accuse McClatchey of being a mouthpiece for the right. I would have expected them to be among the first with a “Ricci had DUI in 1989″ story. Instead they hung People for the American Way out to dry. Good on them.