First Supreme Lesbo

[ham]

...and the bastard is telling us that under Bush things were not just all the same? PFFT! Hey, mr. conservative...is it relevant that Americans under 'Christian' Bush were torturing prisoners, running away from Iraq with billions of cash, private security consultants (Aaah! Thank god it's not socialism, eh?) holding pedo-parties with Iraqi minors, Cheney & Co showering their bankrollers with contracts paid with public money? What do ages old books written by divinely inspired semites tell you about that? Isn't that rolling the dice? What do you say? Ahhh, I see...Americans never ran away with money from Iraq...torture involved a few guys who had hurt themselves tripping downstairs...Cheney& co brought momentum to the industrial economy...and pedo-parties are an invention of Arab haters who took over the U.N...

[Dennis Ruhl]

torture involved a few guys who had hurt themselves tripping downstairs...

They should be like Canada. We charge our soldiers with murder for killing dead guys.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/10052...mrau_video

OK they guy had a severed leg for maybe 20 minutes or more. They guy had just ate some 20mm rounds from a helicopter gunship. There was no body and no post-mortem and nobody saw the captain do it. They heard a couple shots and a lot of rumours.

[Albert Hidel]

How Elena Kagan helped "queer" Harvard Law School
Will she now help "queer" the US Supreme Court's decisions?

Introduction
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.

Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.

Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.

There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.

Kagan did her best to change a generation of Harvard-educated lawyers. Will she do the same to America?

Highlights of Elena Kagan’s Record as Dean at Harvard Law School, 2003-2009 (documentation in following section):

•Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger community.

•Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a "Justice Kagan" on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists -- when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?

•Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein to teach "queer" legal theory. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as the taking up of “newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck)” as well as involving "polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors."

•Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law course by “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by her calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein (currently Obama's regulatory czar) who has written in support of polygamy and other free-for-all marriage relationships.

•Kagan engaged in ongoing, radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.

•Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them -- deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.

•Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals.

•Kagan followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations -- within a month of meeting with a Harvard Law School GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus.

•Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign (during her tenure) to make the campus “trans inclusive” -- using Harvard’s “gender identity” nondiscrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Read: allow men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)

•As a likely result of Kagan's engagement, Harvard has become so committed to radical transsexual activism that its health insurance policy now partially covers “sex-change” breast “treatments” for transsexuals (either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are).  Where does Kagan stand on transgenderism and transsexuality and the law today?  It's very possible this question wil come before the courts as trans activists make their demands on government health care. ...

[Albert Hidel]

[Albert Hidel]

Elena Kagan Should Be Rejected

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth." Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America.

That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court. The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process," and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her "judicial hero." Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says that Kagan's praise of Barak is "disqualifying in and of itself."

Bork said that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris." Bork wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern."

During Kagan's confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Sen. Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using "reasonable foreign law arguments."

Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution states that our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."

Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, September 17. Kagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist to the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches.

Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged the "use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making ... to help actually decide cases," and opined that "international tribunals' rulings must be treated as law."

Kagan's hero is also a transnationalist. In his book "The Judge in a Democracy," he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their "enlightened democratic legal systems."

Kagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, Kagan signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called "profoundly wrong."

That popular federal law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from the campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan's argument, which proves what an extremist she is.

Kagan demonstrated her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Bill Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same act was passed by Congress, signed by President George W. Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Feldman has just published a long New York Times magazine article in which he worries about how the Supreme Court will rule on lawsuits over Obamacare, Obama's takeover of big corporations and the cronyism in stimulus spending. Feldman hopes the Kagan appointment means that "the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought" to take over the courts.

The left is counting on Kagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama's transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Kagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the "living Constitution."

A Rasmussen poll reports that 42 percent of Americans oppose Kagan's confirmation, and only 35 percent favor her. Are senators listening?

[ham]

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court. The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process," and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Well, that is what lord Patrick Devlin said as well.
The idea that the justice system serves some higher, solomonic, impersonal norm and not the socio-economic fads of the moment is false.



Jefferson, Madison, Washington: all slaveholders...if they were here today, they'd probably rot in jail for hate crimes, being sodomized by inmates of color.

The contradiction between freedom and slavery also existed in some
of the statesman who designed the United States republic. George
Washington, “founding father,” Thomas Jefferson, “the architect of
democracy,” and James Madison, “father of the United States
Constitution and its first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights,” were
slaveholding aristocrats. In fact, Peter Kolchin maintains in his book,
American Slavery 1619-1877, “eight of the United States' first
twelve Presidents in office for forty-nine of the new nation's first
sixty-one years, were slaveholders.” Some of those presidents,
including Jefferson, Washington and Madison, were born into the
slaveholding aristocracy of Virginia

[Dickie Billericay]

[Martin Eisenstadt]

Pervert in one thing, pervert in many.  Kagan first rewrote docs to defraud the Supreme Court, then lied about it.  She has no conscience about any of her other immoral conduct, so why should she care about a little thing like fraud?

Busted! Kagan caught fudging her testimony
Nominee dupes U.S. Supreme Court on partial-birth abortion, denies role

Posted: July 26, 2010
9:10 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn

Dozens of pro-life organizations are asking Congress for a probe into testimony made by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, suggesting that she may have lied to senators during her confirmation hearings.

A letter created by Americans United for Life Action and signed by at least 30 state, national and legal organizations asks for "an investigation into discrepancies between Kagan's testimony before Congress and written documentation of her undue influence on medical organizations while advising President William J. Clinton on partial-birth abortion legislation."

The letter cites memos authored by Kagan and released by the Clinton presidential library prior to the confirmation hearings.

In advising President Clinton on his veto of a partial-birth abortion ban in 1997, Kagan issued a memo to Clinton citing a key American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement as "the most reliable opinion" on the medical necessity of partial-birth abortion. That same statement was relied upon by both the president and the Supreme Court in justifying opposition to the partial-birth abortion ban.

When asked during her confirmation hearings about any possible, undue influence over the content of the organization statement, Kagan testified that "there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with (the College) to get it to change its medical views on the question."

Far from not "intervening," however, the released memos and other evidence show Kagan directly rewrote a critical portion of the organization statement to contradict the organization's expert panel and shape the organization findings – and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings – to match the president's proabortion politics.

In a June 22, 1996, memo, Kagan admitted that her meeting with the organization was "something of a revelation," for she learned that "in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial-birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman's health."

In a Dec. 14 memo of that year, Kagan summarized the official organization report released in October as a "disaster," for it stated that "a select panel convened by (the College) could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman," a resounding blow to the president's position.

But a handwritten note by Kagan, published by Americans United for Life Action in a 54-page ethics report on the controversy, drafts a proposed amendment to the organization statement that would be more palatable to the president, adding the sentence: "A [partial-birth abortion], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination."

Court testimony later revealed that the organization executive board, without consulting the experts who crafted the original statement, inserted the amendment into the final statement almost word for word.

Indeed, in her Senate testimony on June 30, 2010, Kagan admitted writing the amendment in an exchange with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

But when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked her if the amendment influenced or changed the organization's position, she responded, "My only dealings with (the College) were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."

To the 30 or so pro-life groups seeking an investigation, however, Kagan's defense doesn't fit the facts.

"We are deeply concerned about Elena Kagan's conflicting testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee," Americans United for Life Action President Charmaine Yoest told LifeNews.com. "There are serious discrepancies between her statements to Senator Hatch and the documented evidence of her actions in December 1996."

Kagan's defense also elicited the criticism of several news sites and commentators.

"By reframing (the College's) judgments, she altered their political effect as surely as if she had changed them," writes William Saletan in Slate, who also summarized Kagan's defense as "bogus."

"Kagan didn't just 'clarify' (the College's) position," he writes. "She changed its emphasis. If a Bush aide had done something like this during the stem-cell debate, progressive blogs would have screamed bloody murder."

The Americans United for Life Action ethics report also cites a June 1, 1997, White House email in which Kagan wrestles with a similar finding by the American Medical Association, which issued a policy stating no situations had been found where a partial-birth abortion would be medically necessary.

Kagan's email states that she had come from a meeting that focused on "whether the AMA policy can be reversed" and concluded, "We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we … could contribute to that effort."

According to Americans United for Life Action, the AMA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists incidents reflect "a pattern of behavior" from Kagan that has had far-reaching effects.

In fact, in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion, citing as part of its argument a report from "a select panel" of the College declaring the procedure "may be the best or most appropriate procedure … to save the life or preserve the health of a woman."

But that phrase, Americans United for Life Action and other commentators point out, wasn't written by a "select panel" of physicians and researchers, but rather by Kagan.

Papers prepped to disbar Elena Kagan
'She should not be a justice when she's defrauded the Supreme Court'

Posted: July 27, 2010
9:38 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn

One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join – and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution – for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.

As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations are already asking the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.

In her confirmation hearings, Kagan defended the amendment, saying, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."

Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement, and court records show the statement was passed off on the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, even though the ACOG's panel of scientists never approved Kagan's wording.

Klayman told WND he believes Kagan's behind-the-scenes work constitutes "conspiracy to defraud the Supreme Court," and he intends to take the evidence that has been compiled by the pro-life groups to file a complaint before the clerk's office of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have Kagan disbarred as a practicing lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.

But Klayman said he isn't stopping there.

"Then I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possibly prosecution of obstruction of justice," he told WND, "because it was reasonably foreseeable that her altering that [ACOG] report would ultimately be used in court proceedings, including but not limited to the Supreme Court."

Klayman concludes, "Elena Kagan should not be a justice of the Supreme Court when she's defrauded the Supreme Court. In fact, she shouldn't even be allowed to practice in front of the Supreme Court under these circumstances."

...Now, Klayman says, even if Kagan is confirmed by a vote in the Senate, he doesn't plan on giving up the fight.

"If she is ultimately confirmed – and we can hope that she will not be – then we will go to phase two, which will be impeachment," Klayman told WND.

Working to stop Kagan's nomination

While the pro-life groups are petitioning U.S. senators to investigate Kagan's amendment and Klayman is turning to the Department of Justice, other organizations are drafting efforts to pressure the Senate into rejecting Kagan's nomination outright.

...According to [WND editor Joseph] Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of "natural rights."

"In all my years of observing Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Farah. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' – those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."

...The statements by Kagan came in an exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Farah said most of the press failed to cover her responses, which he deemed as newsworthy as any she made during the hearings:

Coburn: Do you believe it is a fundamental, pre-existing right to have an arm to defend yourself?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller, which made clear that the Second Amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.

Coburn: I'm asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn't say that was a constitutional right. He said that's a natural right. And what I'm asking you is, do you agree with that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Coburn: So you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren't given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn't give those to us?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.

Coburn: Well, I understand that. I'm not talking about as a justice. I'm talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people's rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.

Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.

Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.

"This woman apparently thinks our rights descend from our Constitution, which is crazy," said Farah. "The Constitution is there to protect our unalienable, God-given human rights – not to define our rights or to invent them."

The campaign to deny Kagan confirmation in the Senate, however, began long before the hearings.

"This woman, as president of her university, banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus," Farah reminds. "Just contemplate rewarding that kind of vehemently anti-American action with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan must be stopped."

...Calling Kagan "an activist who wants to govern from the bench," Farah says there's a way to give senators a "spine transplant" and prepare them for the most contentious confirmation fight since Clarence Thomas.

"Kagan is a radical antimilitary and proabortion zealot," said Farah. "This selection by Barack Obama reveals once again his extremist agenda of leaving America undefended, elevating alternative lifestyles to sainthood and exterminating the most innocent human life with reckless abandon and persecuting anyone who tried to stand in the way. In a nutshell, that's who Elena Kagan is."

[Ben Johnson]

Holy shit! She perpetrated a fraud and lied to the Senate. How much jail time is that worth?

[Herbert Spencer]