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.


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.

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}

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.

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}

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)

ADL and SPLC talk about Sotomayor

Posted on

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. 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.