supreme court

Justice Stephen Breyer – Globalization Challenging the Constitution

Posted on Updated on

“Get it through your head, the constitution and your ‘rights’ are only what we say they are.”

For years Breyer has been talking about globalization and how the supreme court is and will be influenced  by world laws and views not necessarily in sync with traditional U.S. constitution rulings. It’s not Sharia law as zionist shill Pamela Geller says. He is talking about more of a hybrid of the Talmud and globalist Orwellian control.


 Breyer on Sept. 14, 2010 …

Breyer in 2007 …

It’s happening across the world. It’s popularly called “globalization”. But what it involves are people in business, people in law, learning what each other are doing. And they adjust their laws accordingly.

So what I see as happening – and it’s not a political matter – what I see as happening is people who are lawyers and judges in America today have to be aware. And they have to have a system of being aware about what’s going on elsewhere. Because the cases in front of them will more and more depend on what’s happening elsewhere. 

Breyer in 2003 …

“We see all the time, Justice O’Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it’s trite but it’s true – is growing together,” Breyer said. “Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it’s becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they’re going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.”

Asked to explain what he meant when he said judges who favor a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution can’t justify their practices by claiming that’s what the framers wanted, Breyer responded: “I meant that the extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you’re talking about. When you look at the word ‘two’ for two representatives from every state in the United States Senate, two means two. But when you look like a word – look at a word like ‘interstate commerce,’ which they didn’t have automobiles in mind, or they didn’t have airplanes in mind, or telephones, or the Internet, or you look at a word like ‘liberty,’ and they didn’t have in mind at that time the problems of privacy brought about, for example, by the Internet and computers. You realize that the framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed.” 

In Breyer’s 2004 book Judges in Contemporary Democracy: An International Conversation, the unifying theme is the globalization of constitutional law.

Breyer is no friend of the 2nd amendment. In the D.C. vs. Heller ruling he wrote a dissenting opinion that  hints of a globalist view of disarming the masses. History tells us the results of gun control.

Breyer’s words …

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.{more}

Breyer is really not much of a historical constitutional scholar. He thinks John Adams was one of its authors.  I suppose he was too busy studying early zionist history.

After meeting with Jacob de Haas, a former secretary to [Zionist leader] Theodore Herzl in 1912,” notes current Jewish Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, “[Brandeis] joined the American Federation of Zionists and started making public remarks in support of Zionism … In 1917 … his intervention with President Wilson helped secure American support for the Balfour Declaration [in support of a Jewish state in Palestine], thereby assuring its issuance. In 1938, not long before his death, he called upon President Roosevelt, seeking FDR’s public diplomatic support for allowing more Jewish refugees to travel to Palestine.” [BREYER, p. 18]

Breyer is a member of The International Advisory Council of The Israel Democracy Institute.

In 2008, Breyer was the keynote speaker at the ADL Leadership Meeting.

The globalization and zionization of America continues …. right up to the highest court of the land.

This entry was posted in globalism, globalists, supreme court.

A Real Horror Tale

Posted on Updated on

During her Senate confirmation hearing, Elena Kagan practices her death grip on the constitution and the American people.

Hey kids, the 4th of July weekend is coming up and I hear that millions of you will head for the theaters to see the next installment of the ‘Twilight Saga.’ Not having read the books or seen the first two movies in the series I can only go by what I’ve heard about them. They appear to be revisionist writings of the folklore tales of vampires where there are ‘good’ bloodsuckers that interact with the bad. I guess I’m old fashioned in that it’s hard to see vampires as good unless you happen to be one of them.

Most of those who will see the movie are oblivious to the real life horror tale of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Blood thirsty senators talking and questioning one of their own kind about how to further suck out what’s left of  the life of the American public. Going through the motions of being human in the daylight while waiting for darkness to feast on the unaware.

Kagan’s confirmation will be just another confirmation that the undead, a very small percentage of the population, have us in their grasp.

We may fight a little while the fangs enter our body but the sweet relief of sleep is soon welcome.

Crosses and prayers have no effect on the living dead. Maybe a stake through the heart is the best defense but we seem to have misplaced where we put those.

Enjoy the show. You never know when it will be your last.

This entry was posted in society and culture, supreme court.

A Dangerous Precedent?

Posted on

Few will argue that there are not sexually dangerous prisoners who should not see the light of day. Due to lax laws, lenient judges and a corrupt judicial system, all manner of criminals are let loose upon society after their sentences are over to continue their deviant ways.

But today’s supreme court decision that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete could be setting the stage for ‘indefinite detention’ and ‘preventive detention’ of prisoners of all sorts, including political ones.

Could this ruling eventually be applied and approved by the courts under the guise of ‘predictive behavior’  for so called thought crimes and opposition to the status quo? Who would be the ‘experts’ that decide that even though a person’s sentence is complete, they cannot be let out? The possibilities for abuse are many. To think that there aren’t those in the federal government that would use these types of rulings for political repression would be naive.

The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of {those} considered “sexually dangerous.”

“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

But “we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact” this law, Breyer said.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution “expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power,” Thomas said.

Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice’s order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration’s appeal.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.

At the arguments in January, Solicitor General Elena Kagan {Supreme Court nominee} said the power to confine such prisoners was implicit in the government’s duty “to run a responsible criminal justice system.” The law aims “to make sure that sexually dangerous, mentally ill people don’t fall through the cracks between federal custody and the re-establishment of state control,” she said. {more}

Would Kagan be predisposed to call political dissent a mental illness if it suits her and her handlers agenda?

The ultimate agenda goes well beyond the sexually dangerous.

Now independent thinkers are considered diseased by psychiatry

The new edition {of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)} may include “disorders” like “oppositional defiant disorder”, which includes people who have a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures.”{more}

This entry was posted in supreme court.

A Great Reason to Reject Kagan for the Supreme Court ~ ADL Approval

Posted on

I hate to link the Abe Foxman anti-American/anti-Constitution/Israel first/jewish first/diversity-minority manipulator/hate site …  but perhaps it’s important to point out that they wasted no time in supporting the current Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the Obama nominee for the Supreme Court.

ADL Statement on the Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court

When the ADL supports or promotes anyone or anything it should be a call for the American public to step up in opposition.  That just seems like common sense to me.

Unfortunately common sense and honesty and what is best for our country is lacking in those who will ‘debate’ and vote for her confirmation. The smell of money and power and fear overrides all else.

Most of the rest of the country is in a fog and couldn’t care less.

Just as planned.

This entry was posted in adl, criminal government, supreme court.

A Zionist Jewish Lesbian Feminist Not So Free Speech Friendly Nominee for the Supreme Court?

Posted on

Please don’t call the messenger names. I’m just pointing out the politically incorrect obvious. With the  important nomination of a new Supreme Court justice shouldn’t we look at all the aspects of the person? Is Elena Kagan who ‘we the people’ would want? Of course ‘we’ don’t get a vote.

John Paul Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July.

Listening to NPR a couple of days ago it appeared that Elena Kagan, now Obama’s solicitor general, was being promoted as Stevens replacement. For the sake of speculation, lets take a look at Kagan as the nominee.

She’s another Clinton retread who from 1995 to 1999 served as President Bill Clinton‘s Associate White House Counsel  and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

An interesting statement from Absolute Astronomy …

Kagan has also written widely on a range of First Amendment issues and in ways supportive of free speech rights.

“In ways?”  Not very encouraging when we are supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to protect free speech. I wonder which ways she is and is not supportive?

During Kagan’s solicitor general confirmation hearing she seemed to follow a Bush administration line of thinking which must also suit Obama well.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield” amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials. 

This makes me wonder if Kagan might someday apply indefinite detention without a trial or maybe even assassination  to American citizens right here in our country.

Glenn Greenwald says Kagan would mean the court would take a turn to the ‘right’ and perhaps an easier confirmation.

Replacing Stevens with Kagan (or, far less likely, with Sunstein) would shift the Court substantially to the Right on a litany of key issues (at least as much as the shift accomplished by George Bush’s selection of the right-wing ideologue Sam Alito to replace the more moderate Sandra Day O’Connor).  Just click on the links in the last paragraph here, detailing some of Kagan’s “centrist” (i.e., highly conservative) positions on executive power, civil liberties and Terrorism for a sense of how far to the Right she would be as compared to Stevens.

The danger that we won’t have such a status-quo-maintaining selection is three-fold:  (1) Kagan, from her time at Harvard, is renowned for accommodating and incorporating conservative views, the kind of “post-ideological” attribute Obama finds so attractive; (2) for both political and substantive reasons, the Obama White House tends to avoid (with a few exceptions) any appointees to vital posts who are viewed as “liberal” or friendly to the Left; the temptation to avoid that kind of nominee heading into the 2010 midterm elections will be substantial (indeed, The New York Times‘ Peter Baker wrote last month of the candidates he said would be favored by the Left:  “insiders doubt Mr. Obama would pick any of them now“); and (3) Kagan has already proven herself to be a steadfast Obama loyalist with her work as his Solicitor General, and the desire to have on the Court someone who has demonstrated fealty to Obama’s broad claims of executive authority is likely to be great.  {more}

And unlike nearly all the other potential nominees, Kagan is not likely to face sharp attacks from conservatives. At Harvard, she won glowing praise from prominent conservatives for bridging the ideological divide. {more at JTA}

Here’s a little from Elena Kagan is Unfit for the Supreme Court …

The President will want a highly qualified nominee, obviously.  Beyond that, the calculation for the White House will be almost entirely political.  Rahm Emanuel will have overriding control – if not minute-by-minute involvement – just as he did with Justice Sotomayor.  And as with that previous confirmation, the calculus will be one of the political costs and benefits of the highly qualified candidates at the political moment in time. {more}

A NY Times report on Kagan before the Supreme Court …

Solicitor General Elena Kagan defended the law at issue in the case, which bars providing material support to terrorist organizations, as “a vital weapon in this nation’s continuing struggle against international terrorism.”

Even seemingly benign help is prohibited, Ms. Kagan said.

“Hezbollah builds bombs,” she said of the militant Islamic group. “Hezbollah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs. That’s the entire theory behind the statute.”{more}

The Obama administration’s representative before the high court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, urged the justices not to hear the case that Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson brought against the Bush administration over the exposure of Mrs. Wilson’s employment at the CIA. 

From Kevin MacDonald  on Kagan …

Jews as one-third of the Supreme Court seems sure to raise the eyebrows among people like me who think that Jewish identity often makes a big difference in attitudes and behavior. And if there is one area where mainstream Jewish political identity has had a huge effect (besides anything related to Israel), it’s in attitudes and behavior related to multiculturalism. This is true of the Jewish mainstream across the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right. A major theme of The Culture of Critique is that Jewish identities and interests were apparent in all the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements of the left that have rationalized multiculturalism, massive non-White immigration, and the general displacement of Europeans: 
Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology. (Ch. 5 of The Culture of Critique; emphasis in original) 

Kagan seems to have lived a charmed life, with perhaps a whiff (or even a stench) of ethnic networking. At least one of the journalists writing the LA Times panegyric is Jewish (David G. Savage), and the two legal scholars who are quoted in the article (Fried and Tribe) are both Jews. In addition, Kagan was appointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar’s book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.

The only thing Kagan has going for her seems to be that important people admire her. She’s good at networking, and it would seem that many of her most prominent admirers are other Jews — liberal and conservative.

This points to corruption in the Jewish sector of the American academic elite. Kagan’s path to the academic heights of the legal profession and perhaps to a position on the Supreme Court is not based on a solid record of scholarship or any other relevant experience, but on ethnic boosterism from other Jews. As I noted elsewhere, Jews are represented in elite American academic institutions at levels far higher than can be explained by IQ.

For Kagan, the crusade to restrict speech is motivated by her feminist and leftist political attitudes. Indeed, her 1993 paper was originally presented at a conference titled, “Speech, Equality, and Harm: Feminist Legal Perspectives on Pornography and Hate Propaganda.” She sees her job as a legal scholar to find a way to ensure that these goals are achieved while paying lip service to the legal tradition of the First Amendment. Indeed, she sees heavy-handed attempts to restrict free speech, such as the Stanford speech code, as counter-productive because they make “the forces of hatred into defenders of Constitutional liberty” and because they are so unreasonable they invite criticisms of the rest of Stanford’s race and gender policies.

They say politics is the art of the possible. For Kagan, law is also the art of the possible. There are no principles. Only better or worse tactics for achieving her policy goals. {more}

Kagan a lesbian?

“Why are people pretending that Elena Kagan is not a lesbian. She’s not out but that does not change her sexual orientation. She has a female partner. This is an open secret at Harvard Law School among students and faculty. I cannot speak for the broader legal community yet, but I’d have to believe her professional colleagues know as much or more than the students and professors she works with. The real irony would be if she did not get the nomination because she is not open, when the conventional wisdom has always been she has tiptoed through life in the closet for the very sake of winning a confirmation.”

An all Catholic and Jewish Supreme Court? No Protestant justices on the court for the first time ever?

In fact, six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That’s half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Depending on the Stevens replacement, there may be no Protestants left on the court at all in a majority Protestant nation where, for decades and generations, all of the justices were Protestant. {more}

This entry was posted in supreme court.

All Checks, No Balances

Posted on

Who’s running the show from behind the curtain?

A Supreme Court ruling for the ages that’s just another confirmation that we don’t have a constitutional republic. The concept of checks and balances is nothing but a relic and a joke.

Now we can add another wrinkle to the corporate mass media manipulations.This year’s elections should be interesting and we’ll see how far the deep pocket corporations, maybe even foreign ones, will go to promote or destroy a candidate.

I’m looking for ‘blowback’ on this takeover. Is it possible to get everyone educated to what is happening in this ‘money is free speech’ scam and reject all big corporate candidates? Of course that would mean turning our back on almost all from both parties. And that would not be a bad thing.

Another way to possibly counter corporate influence would be to boycott any of them that fund campaign ads. But Americans don’t tend to come together with boycotts and if war profiteering corporations create ads, well, how do you boycott someone like Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

This ruling is also a states rights issue that supposedly overrides existing state laws in favor of corporations.

Alan Grayson had a few choice words to say about the decision and thinks he may have a way to stop it. We’ll be watching his “Save Our Democracy” package, 5 bills introduced in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling to prevent a corporate takeover of government in America. 

Reining in the executive and judicial branches is the key point in Ron Paul’s State of the Republic Address. Agree with him or not in every area, he talks about issues that should be at the forefront of debate.

Video:  Part 1 ~~~ Part 2 ~~~ Part 3

 Key points …..

What is it that we must do? We must immediately embark on:

• Balance the budget by reducing spending
• Change our foreign policy to that of non-intervention
• A full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve
• Legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies
• Regain respect for civil liberties and privacy while reigning in the CIA
• Wean ourselves off the dependence of wealth transfers by government
• Abolish crony capitalism-no subsidies, no bailouts, no regulatory or tax privileges to protect the powerful elite, especially the military industrial complex
• Eliminate the income tax, inheritance tax and taxes on savings and dividends.

None of this can happen without the restoration of Congress to its dominant position of the three Branches of Government as was originally intended by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial must be reined in, and Congress must assert its prerogatives over all legislation curtailing all unconstitutional agendae through budgetary controls. (more – transcript of the videos)

This entry was posted in supreme court.

ADL and SPLC talk about Sotomayor

Posted on

https://i0.wp.com/beinart.org/artists/bas-sebus/gallery/bas-sebus-3.jpg

Philosophical Practice…art by Bas Sebus

Two of the major jewish/zionist ‘thought control by way of the barrel of a gun’ organizations speak out on the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

The ADL’s approach lays out what is as good a summary of the fascist/communist/neocon/neolib/zionist agenda as we will see concerning thought and free speech control by force of law. The laws they want. Twisting the constitution into a unrecognizable piece of trash that is to them just something that stands in the way.

The ADL influence on our local police training must be stopped. Put bluntly, they are traitors.

Take a look at their plans.

ADL Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings

The Southern Poverty Law Center shows its agenda. It you are against Sotomayor, you are a racist. They always go after the ‘white supremest’ groups, many of which are infiltrated and/or set-up controlled opposition as part of the game.

https://i0.wp.com/www.moonbattery.com/Sonia-Sotomayor.jpg The SPLC doesn’t like photoshopped satire.

But they don’t mind giving credence to La Raza whose motto has been “For the Race, Everything; Outside the Race, Nothing.” “Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada.”

“La Raza is hardly a racist group — indeed, it is a thoroughly mainstream human rights organization.” {more}

The ADL and the SPLC are hate proponents, propagandists and anti-American social engineering tools. For them to even mention the Sotomayor hearings through their psychobabble means that her confirmation is not in the best interests of the American people.

This entry was posted in adl, criminal government, senate, splc, supreme court.

The Premise

Posted on

I’m looking at all major decisions, appointments and laws made by the Obama administration and Congress from the premise that anything they do is not in the best interests of the American people. A premise that did not begin with Obama but is a continuation of the ruling bodies and their actions in modern times since at least the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 with only a few exceptions. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the supreme court is not an exception, it reinforces the rule.

http://cmsimg.tennessean.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=DN&Dato=20090527&Kategori=NEWS03&Lopenr=905270418&Ref=TS&NewTbl=1&MaxW=280&Border=0
A “court of appeals is where policy is made.” {see video}

Would that making of policy include a reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment?

Sonia Sotomayor versus the Second Amendment

from Damon Root

Equally troubling is Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC’s handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

“It is settled law,” Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, “that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment’s text, original meaning, and history:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor’s opinions “demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama’s principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.”

As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination. {more}

Any “misinterpretation” of the constitution on 2nd amendment rights shows she is not qualified.

In the forward to “The International Judge,” Sotomayor makes another statement on ‘interpreting’ our constitution.

“The question of how much we have to learn from the international community when interpreting our constitution is not the only one worth posing.”

I don’t like that ‘opinion.’ It’s not in our best interests.

This entry was posted in constitution, supreme court.

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights

Posted on

It’s an individual right to keep and bear arms. Period, end of discussion.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 — Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46 – James Madison

“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 – Thomas Paine

“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 – Elbridge Gerry

“That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…” – George Mason

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry

“Gaurd with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!” – Patrick Henry

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” – Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

From Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com

This entry was posted in 2nd amemdment, gun control, supreme court.

In wake of SCOTUS, Bush should just put up or shut up!

Posted on

Friday, June 13,2008

Len Hart

At last –the US Supreme Court is on the right side of a 5-4 decision. Not surprisingly, George W. Bush has failed to give the decision the support which the decision –now the law of the land –warrants and demands! Bush has but one sworn duty and that is to execute, uphold and defend the laws of the land. Nevertheless, his mealy mouth statement following the high court’s decision recognizing the right of Guantanamo detainess to challenge their detentions in civilian courts does not inspire confidence in a regime that has never deserved or inspired confidence.


Video: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gitmo Detainees

The Bush administration claims Sheikh Mohammed is the ‘master mind’ of 911.

We’ll abide by the court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It …deeply divided court. uhhhh…I strongly agree with those who dissented.

–Bush, Mastermind behind the US terrorist attack and invasion of Iraq

My response to George W. Bush, the master mind behind US imperial terrorism throughout the world, is simply this: put up or shut the fuck up you stupid, criminal son of a bitch! Bush, if you have a case against the Sheikh, MAKE IT! Otherwise, resign the office you have disgraced and just shut up!A final shot: the court, Bush says, was ‘deeply divided’ on this issue. But, are we to believe, that the court was not ‘deeply divided’ when Antonin Scalia and four other right wing ideologues handed down Bush v Gore, a disingenuous decision that made no law, the very worst SCOTUS decision since Dred-Scott?
At last, Scalia is not only not ‘intellectually challenged’, he is ‘intellectually dishonest’. Scalia will look for convincing if fallacious rationalizations to support his prejudiced point of view. Scalia has disgraced the court. If the US survives the wave of right wing hysteria that has attacked it and its institutions, it may take generations to right the wrongs of the ‘right’! Scalia claims that the majority decision will cause ‘more Americans to be killed’! Stupid! It’s hard to see how any more Americans could possibly be killed than have died already as the direct result of Bush’s order to attack and invade Iraq –a nation which not even Bush dares try to connect with 911 or with ‘terrorism’. Scalia is no judge –he’s a propagandist! And not a good one.
The idiot Scalia dare not try to make the case that any detainee from either Afghanistan or Iraq have had anything to do with terrorism of any kind at any time. Why, then, are they detained? Only liars, Bush and Scalia primarily, are threatened by granting these ‘detainees’ their day in court.
How can Antonin Scalia write with a straight face that by recognizing the ‘universal human right’ to habeas corpus, the right to defend ones’ self against charges that, by right, should be made formally and within a reasonable amount of time are the lives of Americans endangered in any way? Scalias’ argument is sophomoric, intellectually challenged, without supporting precedent of any kind in western jurisprudence, without supporting precedent over some 400 years of Anglo/American common law. It is most certainly abhorrent to those principles affirmed and made law in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Scalia’s ideas are, in fact, repugnant, fascist and un-American! Scalia is a traitor to the ideals of our revolution and our history. Scalia is unfit to sit upon the high court. His continued presence disgraces the court and undermines its credibility.

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

****************************************************************

Limits to Growth and the Inevitable End of Capitalism

Friday, June 13, 2008

Len Hart

It’s been over 35 years since the ‘Club of Rome’ shook up the world with a computer model that predicted the collapse of life on Earth. A startling book, ‘The Limits to Growth’ was not the work of cultists or fanatics. It was the work of known, respected scientists and computer experts.

Our conclusions are

  • If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
  • It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential

—The Limits to Growth, Abstract established by Eduard Pestel. A Report to The Club of Rome (1972), Donella H. Meadows, Dennis l. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III

The issues raised are more relevant now than ever. ‘Capitalism’ is premised upon unlimited growth. It follows, therefore, that if we have come to the limits of growth we have come to the limits of capitalism. The absolute end of growth is the absolute end of capitalism. Reality mandates NON-IDEOLOGICAL thinking. Ideologues will never grasp that! They cannot ‘handle the truth’.

All historical eras are shaped by the material and environmental realities of their time. Our own reflects the adjustments society and nature have made to accommodate the unprecedented 6.7 billion human beings now alive. And those changes are dramatic. The planet is warming dangerously as a result of the heat-trapping byproducts of our daily lives. Half of the primeval forests that existed at the end of the last ice age are gone. A mist of mercury and other toxic metals from coal combustion falls continuously on land and ocean, and to eat fish is to absorb these metals yourself. Half of us are now urban, rarely if ever meeting up with creatures wilder than crows, cockroaches, and, in some cities, packs of feral dogs….What dominates our experience in the first decade of the third millennium are the technologies and institutions we have invented, disseminated, tinkered with, and improved over thousands of years to make human life on such scales possible. We’ve done well. Not only are more people alive than ever, but most of us live longer than our ancestors did. Quite a few of us spend our entire lives in comfort and with tools and toys that those ancestors never could have imagined.–Population: What to Do When There Are Too Many of Us

It’s impossible to imagine unfettered growth continuing forever on a planet of finite resources. Unless the human race escapes the earthly sphere, it may not mine the resources of the Solar System. It may not be simply assumed that such ‘exploitation’ will ever be practical or feasible economically. Exploration for the sake of exploration is costly. It will have to be shown that going ‘where no man has gone before’ is profitble before it becomes reality. Thus it is not only the ‘limits to growth’ that are at issue but the ‘limits’ to the very practicality of limiting human horizons to that which is profitable.

“In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground would have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates. No serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why did this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and 2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows by 85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During the first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century, the rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use as many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in the entire century before. So many resources are used that much more capital and energy are required to find, extract, and refine what remains.”As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to obtain in this simulated world, capital is diverted to producing more of them. That leaves less output to be invested in basic capital growth.”Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this is physical investment and depreciation, not monetary). The economy cannot stop putting its capital into the agriculture and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity of food, materials, and fuels would restrict production still more. So the industrial capital plant begins to decline, taking with it the service and agricultural sectors, which have become dependent upon industrial inputs. For a short time the situation is especially serious, because the population keeps rising, due to the lags inherent in the age structure and in the process of social adjustment. Finally population too begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health services.”ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS, Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins [p.p.132-134]

It was not so long ago that the European exploration of the ‘new world’ was motivated by greed and empire. At the ‘limits of growth’, ‘greed and empire’, indeed ‘capitalism’ of any sort may be obsolete. Thus ‘global warming’ is denied in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is real. Any fact will likewise be denied if it should challenge unquestioned dogma, especially the dogma of capitalism or any economic system premised upon the infinite exploitation of finite resources. The ‘Club of Rome’ addressed five basic elements of life on earth –population, food production, and our consumption of nonrenewable natural resources. All are increasing at exponential rates. It should be clear that not only are there limits to exponential growth, assumptions that such growth is infinitely sustainable are not supported by fact, theory or observation. I don’t have an animated demonstration of exponential growth as it relates to ‘population’ growth specifically, but I do have the late physicist Phillip Morrison narrating a dramatic visual representation of the ‘powers of ten’, the effect of adding one to an exponent.

Additional resources

This entry was posted in capitalism, crimes, criminal government, supreme court, treason.