Elena Kagan is Harriett Meyers and Cass Sunstein is John Roberts

Author Topic: Elena Kagan is Harriett Meyers and Cass Sunstein is John Roberts  (Read 8202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
watch for the bait and switch
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Re: Elena Kagan is Harriett Meyers and Cass Sunstein is John Roberts
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2010, 05:45:20 PM »
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c3_1273680209

OMG..that web page is hilarious...middle of page got this....LMFAO
MU-HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA

Meet Sexy Women in your Area!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Elena Kagan is Harriett Meyers and Cass Sunstein is John Roberts
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2010, 05:48:06 PM »
Republican Tea Party Hedges on Rejecting Enemy of the Constitution Kagan
http://www.infowars.com/republican-tea-party-hedges-on-rejecting-enemy-of-the-constitution-kagan/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 12, 2010

The Republican version of the Tea Party, the Tea Party Express (a money-making machine for establishment Republicans), has drafted a guideline for selecting Supreme Court nominees.

The plan lays out “Five Constitutional principles,” as follows: “Judges must interpret the Constitution of the United States as written,” “Judges must not use their positions to replace the text of the law and Constitution of the United States with their own personal feelings or experiences,” and “Judges must understand that the Federal government has no power if the Constitution does not explicitly provide it.”



Corporate media completely ignores Kagan’s animus toward the Bill of Rights.

Sounds good. And yet the Tea Party Express has yet to make up its mind on Elena Kagan, according to CNN.

Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express said activists are in a “fact-gathering mode,” figuring out the process, timeline, and how Kagan compares to other Supreme Court nominees. The Tea Party Express has not yet expressed an opinion of Kagan. “We have not, collectively as a group, taken a hard-line,” Kremer said.

Why not? It is no secret Elena Kagan is an enemy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In academic papers, Kagan has stated her opinion that certain free speech should disappear and she would celebrate censorship. “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation,” she wrote in her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” for the University of Chicago Law Review.



Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly frame Kagan nomination in standard left vs. right fashion.

Kagan believes the Supreme Court should focus on “motives” when it comes to restricting the First Amendment. Not that censorship is unconstitutional on its face, but rather that the government should go shopping for politically correct motives.

“Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech,” reports CNSNews.

It does not take a lot of imagination to envision what Kagan would deem proper motives for government censorship. She is a socialist, Wall Street operative, and multicultural lesbian.

In an article written three years later, Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

In a brief, United States V. Stevens, uncovered by the Washington Examiner, Solicitor General Kagan wrote: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

“The Court rejected Kagan’s reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment’s protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted,” writes Mark Tapscott for the Washington Examiner.

In short, this woman is an enemy of the Bill of Rights. Is there something about this fact the Tea Party Express does not understand?

Establishment Republicans will assist Obama in placing this enemy of the Constitution on the Supreme Court.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has called Kagan “a brilliant woman.” Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said he doubts there is anything in Kagan’s record that would result in a filibuster. Kagan is “nominally qualified, and by that I mean she is obviously very intelligent.” Kyl told CNN.

Republicans will not attempt to block Kagan’s nomination.

Even though Kagan’s nomination is all but a foregone conclusion, the real Tea Party needs to vociferously denounce her as a threat to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They need to underscore her Wall Street connections.

Obama plans to pack the court with traitors who endeavor to dismantle the Bill of Rights. Sonia Sotomayor is also a minion of the elite and a member of the female version of the Bohemian Grove, the Belizean Grove.

Like Kagan, she is a committed socialist. She quoted Norman Thomas in her 1976 Princeton yearbook.

Thomas was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. Socialism has received ample funding and support from Wall Street since the advent of the Communist Revolution in Russia. It is the preferred control mechanism of the global elite.

The Obama administration is rife with enemies of the Constitution. Another sworn enemy of liberty, Cass Sunstein, who heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, proposed infiltrating “conspiracy groups” in COINTELPRO fashion. He has suggested the government ban “conspiracy theorizing” and “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

Remarkably, Sunstein appeared on a SCOTUS short list before Kagan was selected.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Elena Kagan is Harriett Meyers and Cass Sunstein is John Roberts
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2010, 05:53:14 PM »
WATCH FOR THE HITLER IN THE WINGS...

Top Obama Czar Sunstein:
Mein Kampf II:
THE PLAN TO EXTERMINATE NWO OPPOSITION


Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions


In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"

"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."

Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."


"The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."


"The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."


"The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."


"That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."


"The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."
Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."

He continued: "The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of 'mind control.'”

Sunstein's paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November's climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Sunstein: Ban 'right wing' rumors

Sunstein's paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.

WND reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."

In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."

Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.

'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'

WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."

Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."

Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."

He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.

Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."

He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.

"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.

But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Elena Kagan is Harriett Meyers and Cass Sunstein is John Roberts
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2010, 06:13:39 PM »


  AMAZING WORK BROCKE.

  Sunstein--the guy who thinks animals should have standing in court.  THE GUY IS A TOTAL WACKO.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.