Los Angeles Times Vets Kagan

With the upcoming confirmation hearings for Obama's second selection in less than two years for the U.S. Supreme Court it should come as no surprise that the Los Angeles Times came out with an article favoring the selection of Ms. Kagan, based upon their conclusion that Ms. Kagan was not a "leftist" as has been portrayed, but more of a moderate.

Coming from the Times, any further right than the USSR would be moderate, in this writer's opinion.

Of course, the L.A. Times is owned by the Tribune Global conglomerate based out of Chicago so I guess the hometown crowd may have had a bit of influence on the reporter's perspective, don't you think?

They do own "Hoy" a Spanish language newspaper sold in this country as one of the more "globalist" world government news organizations from the get go.

The facts given in the article demonstrating Ms. Kagan's more "moderate" views, of course, failed to mention quite a few salient facts.

Harvard's progressively more "conservative" curriculum under Ms. Kagan was highlighted, backed up by the opinion of one lawyer that graduated from this institution of higher learning stating that Harvard has now become now for its conservative course curriculums.

I guess if your definition of conservatism is more aligned with the British variety, since Ms. Kagan was dean when one of her administrative acts was to remove the mandatory Constitutional Law classes and replace them with more globally focused "progressive" classes.

During her confirmation as Solicitor General, she brought to her hearings some of her old friends from Cambridge, a British school of higher learning.

Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge and some of those West Coast liberal law schools seem to have a rather open student exchange program, so I guess those students who attempt to transfer credit between universities have much less of a problem than most students in the U.S. who simply attempt to get their credits transferred between U.S. colleges during their course of studies.

Ms. Kagan is the child of Russian Jewish immigrant parents cum New Yorkers, a fact also mentioned in the article.

And Russia was a communist country for an awful long time, and those of Russian Jewish lineage do tend to be more rather "socialist" in their outlook. Many American Jewish children of past generations were sent to Israel for the requisite two years during their adolescence in order to live on a kibbutz and also visit their "homeland." It does appear that this selection is actually meant to replace Ms. Ginsburg, since it does appear Ms. Kagan is almost exactly as "conservative" as Ms. Ginsburg with her beliefs that the Constitution is a "living document" which can be amended by those justices outside Constitutional provision.

And as with Ms. O'Connor before her, a labeled "moderate" yet also more a converted Globalist in her later opinions, believes that there is a place for international law and precedence in rendering their opinions, although it clearly was the founders intent that this nation remain a sovereign country and not influenced in any manner by what Europe (and especially Britain) or the rest of the world's government provided.

The Romans attempted world government, all those philosphers that were also important influences on those Caesars and senators.

But the United States was not in any manner to even parallel Rome's government, although it has become clear, especially in the last several decades, that this is exactly the mindset of those on the Hill.

Yes, this age is different from that of the founders. I mean, they had an entire Eastern Seaboard and coastline to defend with simply rudimentary cannons and muskets against some of the finest standing armies in the world, and pirates on the high seas.

Ms. Kagan has a "worldly" view of government, not a founder's or framer's view.

But leave it to the global socialists in this country to care more about how the Court "looks" than how true those sitting on it are to the charter which even gives them those lofty positions.

Ms. Kagan appears to be another of the British trained lawyers which are gaining more and more influence in all levels of government.

Harvard abandoned the Constitution under Ms. Kagan. Although most law schools throughout the nation appear to be focusing much more on judge made and international law, rather than the Constitution and those founders intent outside a clear amendment of it sanctioned by the people through the states with those justices having absolutely no legal authority to so do independently.

And that isn't what has "progressively" occurred by those British trained yet American "civil servants."

Isn't that enough for a "no" vote.

But don't hold your breath, since after those BP hearings and those "staged" Congressional confrontations by those Tories on the Hill in bed with those global corporatists, I expect Ms. Kagan will get confirmed after a few Senators have a chance for some media face time for the folks back home before next elections, her fellow Globalist Brits, whose percentages in all three branches of government are now at unprecedented levels.

The question is not whether she can read English or was educated at Harvard, but can she read American and is she at all familiar with the document which provides for her potential position - especially after removing its study from the Harvard curriculum.

Beware, America, of any Senator that uses the words "judicial precedent" as part of his criteria also for confirmation.

To most Americans who are even minimally politically aware, there have been a bucketload of Supreme Court decisions that have been rendered that have been so unconstitutional they are laughable, and have contributed significantly to why this country is in the mess it is in. Including the most recent one on unlimited spending by corporate entities as somehow a "free speech" right, and within Constitutional intent. Just how CAN you have a representative government, when those potential representatives are afforded to be sponsored by "foreign" entities outside their legislative districts, I ask you?

The L.A. Times also focused on her fundraising ability for the university as a positive measure of one who would "get things done."

The question is: Constitutionally, or "progressively."