The Wall Street Court: Kagan Confirmed By Senate

In another political move by those in Washington, Elena Kagan's nomination by Barack Obama was confirmed by a majority of the Senate along mostly partisan party lines after much political posturing by many in the "opposing" party for public consumption, since the "defectors" were again the same old, same old labeled "Republican moderates" from the Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, etc.

Although the mainstream media continues to label the court as primarily a "conservative" court, this American Constitutional Conservative would beg to differ.

I guess since our press has progressively become so far out globalist liberal in their ownership, especially the "Associated" Press which includes foreign press and news agencies, anything right of communism would seem conservative to most of their staff writers.

This is how truly representative our current Supreme Court is at the present time.

Although no "religious" test is to be given for any public service position or political office, our Court is now comprised of three Jewish members, and six Catholics.

Seven basically East Coasters or New Yorkers by birth or length of residency.

And six graduates of Harvard Law School, and three of Yale - with quite a few with their undergraduate studies in Britain.

Leave it to the press and globalist politicans to promote to the public the "look" of the Court (six men and three women, with a mix of "racial" or "ethnic" minority members by race, religion or ethnicity) without scratching further in just how "liberal" this Court actually is and unrepresentative of the American people really in its composition.

And of the nine from East Coast schools, the most current and confirmed member threw out mandatory Constitutional law classes in favor of a more "progressive" curriculum during her tenure, while the press focused on her decision to ban the military from the ivy halls of Harvard due to its "don't ask, don't tell" privacy policies (since our military actually is supposed to be defending this country and its people from "foreign" threats, and the military actually is not supposed to be a dating service in any manner whatsoever - and what is more private than your sexual preference and how many gays in the military actually hold that their military and private lives are two different things as opposed to the "spins" and outside agitators on this issue?). The "gay issue" has also its roots in, I'm sure, creating more work for the civil rights lawyers for those Federal Reserve notes for their legal fees that Washington hands out now like candy and create more, not less, conflict within our military ranks unnecessarily.

And with the exception of Justice Thomas, none of whom actually are texturalists which, unless and until the Constitution is amended by the will of the people according to the provisions within it for amendment - and not the simply the states as it was the intent of those founders that any subsequent amendments would be placed before the people before each and every state ratified further amendments - we have nothing more than an entire British "sovereign" leaning Supreme Court down the line as was quite apparent with the most recent trashing of its provisions with respect to campaign finance laws favoring the "corporate" over the intent of the founders for a representative government at its foundation.

That being that no candidate for political office should be "sponsored" by any entity, either corporately or otherwise, domiciled outside their specific legislative districts. Period. Especially not "globally" focused corporate entities with "foreign" home offices even outside the country.

Nor is there any such entity as "corporate person-hood" including "municipal corporate-personhood" with respect to Bill of Rights provisions.

Ms. Kagan has an engaging demeanor, but given her actual actions discounting the very document upon which her "right" to even hold such a position was given the shaft while she was Dean of Harvard's Law School and thus affecting fundamentally law in this country through Harvard's "miseducation" also progressively with some of those graduates now holding public service positions throughout the country by federal appointment, doesn't that demonstrate to those Senators and the American people that she did not hold the bare minimum qualifications for the position for which she was being "interviewed?"

No wonder the West and Western citizens lives and property are being sacrificed for the "greater good," outside California and the Hollywood contingent and their "corporate" needs.

America lacks representation on any level in the highest court in the land, and progressively so as was more than apparent during tose hearings.

The British bankers and Wall Street have progressively cornered our Court, and have the majority.

A royal straight flush.

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."

Obama Nominates British Trained Kagan To Supreme Court

Well, I guess it comes once again as no surprise to the Constitution believing Americans in this country.

Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campus.

Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our government is just the opposite.

At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate commercial (property) entities.

Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.

If not directly, then through the U.S. Supreme Court.

Interesting that Ms. Kagan's first appearance before the Court was to argue on behalf of the government on that ludicrous Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case granting unlimited and outside of district "free speech" rights to corporate entities in this country.

Even if they are federally funded through taxpayer paid grant monies, as a great many of these "educationally" focused lawyer led "grass roots" corporate organizations continue to be.

In effect, nothing more than "state actors" then of the federal government with all those strings attached to those grant monies, and apparently being used more and more in this country in order to also extended 'corporate' rights under the Bill of Rights to "corporate person-hoods," - another party to the Constitution created by a bogus and rogue Supreme Court ruling way back when.

Which coincided within that time frame the creation of the Office of the Solicitor General back in 1870, a position Ms. Kagan now holds although had never previously argued a case before the Supreme Court.

Who also wrote a thesis during her law school education in defense of socialism.

The Global Socialists are hard at work on the Hill, that much is clear, with this recent nomination from both "sides" of the corporate global socialist bent political parties now in power.

Which fundamentally is a violation of those founders intent for a representative government at its core.

As was that Citizens United decision.

Interesting that Ms. Kagan did not argue the question of the Constitutionality of the unlawful creation and extention of Bill of Rights protections for corporate entities outside the clear language of the Constitution and intent of those founders, hence the Boston Tea Party which was also a demonstration against global corporate control of the people of the United States by the sovereign, King George, and the East India Tea Company public/private partnership in that initial appearance before the Court.

But then, that would in effect negate the legality of all those public officials right to hold their current offices as not "duly elected" to begin with, would it not, including those Supreme Court justices as affirmed by those now unlawfully holding public office?

I'm simply waiting for that position on one of these commercial and "corporate friendly" cases to be argued giving increasingly unequal privileges and immunities to "property" as opposed to the people of this great nation.

But I won't hold my breath.

At least not in this Administration, as with the last and so many, many before which is why this nation is where it is, clearly, at this point in our history.

Dissolving and regressing back into foreign ownership and control through both its foreign owned banks, and through its globally focused and dictated leadership PROGRESSIVELY.