Author Topic: *MSM BLACKOUT: Elena Kagan has been a paid advisor for Goldman Sachs for years!  (Read 46453 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
She is anti Dershowitz and pro Finkelstein...


Norman Finkelstein (2003–)
Main article: Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair
Shortly after the publication of Dershowitz's 2003 book The Case for Israel a debate was broadcast by Democracy Now!, a news radio and television program, where Norman Finkelstein, in what he called a "scholarly judgment," said that the book is "a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense." To demonstrate his point, Finkelstein gave series of examples throughout the show, one of which was pointing out a long quote from Mark Twain appearing on pages 23–24 of The Case for Israel which was "an identical quote...With the ellipsis at the same places" directly taken from pages 159-160 of From Time Immemorial written by Joan Peters without making any reference to Joan Peters. Dershowitz argued that the quote was a correct quote by Mark Twain to whom he gave credit.

Since then, there have been number of reactions by various figures, such as Harvard University President Derek Bok who investigated the charges at the request of the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan. Bok determined that no plagiarism had occurred.[24] Dershowitz and some of his prominent supporters assert that what Finkelstein calls plagiarism is in fact standard scholarly practice.[25][26]

In an April 3, 2007 interview with the Harvard Crimson, "Dershowitz confirmed that he had sent a letter last September to DePaul faculty members lobbying against Finkelstein's tenure."[27] The De Paul University Liberal Arts and Sciences' Faculty Governance Council voted unanimously to send a letter to Harvard University expressing "the council's dismay at Professor Dershowitz's interference in Finkelstein's tenure and promotion case."[28] In June 2007, DePaul University denied Finkelstein tenure.[29]
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
Be aware, the Bilderberg media may be hyping some BS polarizing issue concerning religion when she is a banker's puppet IMO. This is the most tame angle on the matter and sheds light on the complexity of the issue. Remember how Goldman protected Obama with the whole racist crap, well they are probably going to do the same with Kagan by saying anyone against her is anti-gay, anti-woman, or anti-semetic. Watch for it...



Elena Kagan: Jewish Ethnic Networking Eases the Path of a Liberal/Leftist to the Supreme Court
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Kagan.html
Kevin MacDonald May 20, 2009 [Almost a year ago]


Kevin MacDonald is Professor of  Psychology at California State University–Long Beach. After receiving a Masters degree in evolutionary biology, he received a Ph. D. in Biobehavioral Sciences, both at the University of Connecticut.  Since assuming his position at California State University–Long Beach, his research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives on culture, developmental psychology and personality theory, the origins and maintenance of monogamous marriage in Western Europe, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He is the author of more than 100 scholarly papers and reviews, and he is the author of Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (1988), A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). He has also edited three books, Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development (1988), Parent-Child Play: Descriptions and Implications (1994), and Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development (2004). Cultural Insurrections, a collection of essays, appeared in 2008.

A recent LA Times article, “Supreme Court Nominee has admirers left and right,” by David G. Savage and James Oliphant, although masquerading as news, is a brief for the candidacy of Elena Kagan for the position on the Supreme Court vacated by David H. Souter.  The article notes that she is well connected to top people in the Obama Administration, and there is effusive praise from two legal bigwigs, Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried, both of Harvard.

Kagan’s candidacy raises a number of issues. If nominated and confirmed, there would be three Jewish justices on the Supreme Court — all on the left. Jews are of course always overrepresented among elites — especially on the left, but 33% is high by any standard given that Jews constitute less than 3% of the US population. This is much higher than Jewish representation in the US Senate (13%) and the House of Representatives (~7%).  The last time I checked, if there were three Jews on the Supreme Court, the percentage would be about the same as the percentage of Jews among the wealthiest Americans.

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.

While Jewish activists are doing all they can to promote a Jew for this position, we don’t hear a peep from White Protestants — a group that dominated the Supreme Court for 150 years.  With Souter's departure, the only White Protestant left on the court is the superannuated Stevens, who is 89 and will doubtless be replaced by an ethnic minority if he retires during the Obama administration. (White males need not apply.)  When it comes to playing help-my-tribe battles, White Protestants are completely inept — in fact, they don't even play at all.  

Tribe’s praise for Kagan is particularly interesting: “She has an excellent chance, and she would be terrific. … She has a masterful command of so many areas of law. And she's been vetted and recently confirmed. Her writing is not voluminous, which is also a plus."

Indeed, her writing is not voluminous at all. In her entire career at the University of Chicago and Harvard — the very apex of elite academic institutions — she has written a grand total of 9 articles. Actually, her scholarly output is even less than that because two of these publications are book reviews and one is a tribute to Thurgood Marshall. When she received tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, she had exactly two scholarly articles published in law journals — a record that would ordinarily not get her tenure even at quite a few third tier universities much less an elite institution like the University of Chicago.

But on the basis of this record and later work in the Clinton Administration, in 2003 she became the dean of Harvard Law School, the most prestigious law school in the country. She has yet to publish any articles or books since becoming dean. But now her lack of scholarship is called a plus by Laurence Tribe, presumably because her positions on many issues are unknown. (Doubtless if Kagan had a stellar scholarly record, Tribe would have seen it as a major plus.)

Not only does she have a weak record as a scholar, she has yet to argue a case as Solicitor General even though she had the opportunity to do so. Her next opportunity to argue a case will not happen until after the Supreme Court nomination process is over, so we will have no information on how effective she would be in fending off the arguments of the conservative intellectual heavyweights on the Court before this weighty decision is made. On the basis of the arguments she endorsed in the Solomon Amendment case (see below), one must assume that she would not fare well.

Nor are there any other discernible positives. As Savage and Oliphant note, “Kagan does not have the ‘real world’ experience in politics. …  It is not clear whether she has the "quality of empathy" Obama has said he wants in a nominee. But she has had an uncanny knack for winning important admirers and avoiding enemies in a series of top legal jobs.”

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. (Tribe and Summers are liberals; Charles Fried is considered a conservative. Fried was Solicitor General in the Reagan Administration but voted for Obama.) Ethnic networking indeed!

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.

Kagan is a poster girl for Jewish affirmative action. Not only does she have no discernible skills that would warrant her high position as dean of Harvard Law — much less an appointment to the Supreme Court, she is boosted by another Harvard professor (Laurence Tribe) who plagiarized another scholar’s work. (Plagiarism seems to run rampant at Harvard Law. Norman Finkelstein provides a credible case that Alan Dershowitz plagiarized others’ work in writing The Case for Israel. Charles J. Ogletree Jr., an African American, was involved in double plagiarism: foisting off the plagiarized work of his assistants as his own.) And Kagan was appointed dean of Harvard Law by then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers who has massive ethical problems of his own related to shielding another Harvard professor, his friend and protĂ©gĂ© Andrei Shleifer. Shleifer  was found liable by a federal court in 2004 for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government for his activities during the transition to capitalism in Russia in the 1990s. Summers also accepted $2.7 million in speaking fees from companies that received government bailout money when he later became head of the National Economic Council.

What could we expect from Kagan on the Supreme Court? Kagan has been flagged by conservatives because of an amicus brief she and other law professors wrote seeking to strike down a law that prohibited colleges and universities that ban military recruiting on campus from receiving federal funds. The motive behind the brief signed by Kagan was to protest the military’s policy on homosexuality. Their arguments were rejected 8-0 by the Supreme Court, indicating that even the Court liberals thought it was completely outside the mainstream.

This strongly suggests that Kagan would be quite willing to fashion her legal arguments to attain her liberal/left policy goals, and that is exactly what her other writings show. Her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," (60 University of Chicago Law Review  873; available on Lexis/Nexis) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: “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 acknowledges that the Supreme Court is unlikely to alter its stance that speech based on viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment, but she sees that as subject to change with a different majority: The Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.

And until that day comes — doubtless speeded by her arrival on the court, she advocates finding ways to rationalize restrictions on free speech within the current guidelines of the court.  Her article proposes a variety of ways that “hate speech” may be restricted without running afoul of current Supreme Court guidelines. For example, she supports the constitutionality of “hate crime” laws that enhance penalties for crimes motivated by racial bias — precisely the sort of law recently passed by the House and now being considered by the Senate. Such laws have been strongly promoted by the organized Jewish community and condemned by conservative legal scholars as creating special victim categories and destroying federalism because they punish acts that are already illegal in the states.

Kagan’s conclusion shows where her heart is:

[Efforts to draft restrictions on speech] will not eradicate all pornography or all hate speech from our society, but they can achieve much worth achieving. They, and other new solutions, ought to be debated and tested in a continuing and multi-faceted effort to enhance the rights of minorities and women, while also respecting core principles of the First Amendment.

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.

In a revealing comment, she notes that those who want to restrict speech in heavy-handed and unconstitutional ways are motivated by the stubborn failure to close the racial gap:

The magnitude and duration of these inequalities may make them impervious to political (let alone to academic) efforts. We do not know how to solve these problems; we may not even know how to talk (or perhaps we are afraid to talk) about them. So some succumb to the allure of sideshows such as the one involving the Stanford Policy.

Given what many believe is the biological basis of these racial differences and recent reports that the racial gap in education is not narrowing despite the No Child Left Behind law aimed at raising the scores of Blacks and Latinos, I suspect that this temptation to restrict speech will be increasingly irresistible in the future. And if Kagan is on the Supreme Court, we can certainly expect that she would vote for such restrictions. Her heart, as I am sure Obama must know, is definitely in the right place.

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.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.
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
Elena Kagan: Wall Street’s SCOTUS Pick
http://www.infowars.com/elena-kagan-wall-streets-scotus-pick/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 10, 2010

Democrats are going gaa-gaa over Obama’s Supreme pick Elena Kagan. “Democrats praised Kagan as ‘razor sharp’ and impeccably qualified for the lifetime appointment on the nine-member bench, but Republicans promised to vigorously vet a ’surprising’ choice, noting she had never been a judge,” reports Agence France-Presse. “I have selected a nominee who I believe embodies… excellence, independence, integrity and passion for the law, and who can ultimately provide that same kind of leadership on the court,” Obama said at the White House.



Is Kagan independent? Hardly. She is a bankster operative.

Kagan sat on a Goldman Sachs advisory council between 2005 and 2008. It was her job to offer “analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients.”

Obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs and the Justice Department are now engaged in frenetic damage control over Kagan’s Goldman connection. Kagan’s role working for the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity” (as Matt Taibbi described Goldman) should not be dismissed lightly. Kagan will obviously serve the interests of the banksters if she makes it to the Supreme Court (adding to the corporatist influence already well entrenched there). Republicans need to hammer Kagan on this during her confirmation hearing. But then Republicans are the right hand on the zombie One Party grocery clerk known as Congress. Difficult questions will not be asked.

But it is not merely Goldman. It’s also Kagan’s connection to Larry Summers, the former Undersecretary for International Affairs in the Clinton administration and chief economist at the notorious loan sharking and poverty creation machine, the World Bank. Summers also worked in 2006-2008 for a derivatives firm, D.E. Shaw and was paid around five million dollars.

It was Summers and his so-conspirator Robert Rubin that facilitated the destruction of the Glass-Steagall Act designed during the last Great Depression to erect a firewall between commercial and investment banking.

Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, a former co-chairman of the board at Goldman, and a director at Citigroup.

Rubin, Summers, and the Fed mob boss at the time, Alan Greenspan, worked with the globalist IMF in 1998 to micromanage to engineered finnacial crisis in Russia.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says Kagan will serve the interests of average Americans, an absurd proclamation at best. In fact, Elena Kagan is a bankster operative and she will serve the interests of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. She was selected by the global elite specifically for this reason.

Finally, it will be nearly impossible to criticize Obama’s pick because it is rumored she is a lesbian. If you point out her Wall Street connections, you will be called homophobic the same way any criticism of Obama is deemed racist and dismissed as the hateful ravings of white supremacists.

Addendum

Beyond all the banker connections, it appears Ms. Kagan was also a radical socialist. In her undergraduate thesis at Princeton entitled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933,” Kagan wrote: “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.”

Once again, the words of the late Gary Allen come to mind: “If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”

As the scholar Atony Sutton and others have revealed, Wall Street financed and supported every major socialist movement in the 20th century.

Do you think Republicans will grill Kagan on her radical socialist beliefs? Sure, the moment after Hell freezes over.
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 ES

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,640
  • Old Iron Sides: Enemy of Tyrannical Scum
Why don't we just let Goldman Sachs be the president, congress and supreme court.
"My heroes are people who monkey wrench the new world order". - Jello Biafra

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Why don't we just let Goldman Sachs be the president, congress and supreme court.

i think we already did
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 citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Why don't we just let Goldman Sachs be the president, congress and supreme court.
+1, exactly

Look, I'm sure she has many redeeming features as a human being and as a legal scholar (although her record there was actually a little thin, too, before getting tenure - rather like Soetoro's record as a scholar.)

She had no experience as a judge.  That is fundamental, and enough for rational people to kill her appointment to SCOTUS.

The fact that she has issued/written many statements supporting expanded executive powers are certainly another red flag, but it is really her lack of experience that is the problem, just like Soetoro's lack of experience before the Bilderbergers annointed him our future President and Savior and inserted him into that position while erasing and whitewashing his history.  No more mysterious nabobs from nowhere for higher office, I say.  I don't care if she's for the first ammendment or against Dershowitz.  Hitler, I am told, loved dogs and children.  Let's raise the bar.

BTW, there WERE experienced judges on the short list, too.  What the hell happened to them?  It's like he had a point to make, KWIM?  "Lets' pick the candidate theat middle America is going to like the least."  I really think that's his way of thinking at this point.  I think bottom line his motivation is often, now, just utter contempt.  What did he get out of this (other than installing another GS recycle on the highest court in the land?)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
MEDIA IS HIDING THE FACT THAT SHE HAS BEEN A DIRECTOR AT GOLDMAN SACHS FOR 5 YEARS!!!!
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 citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
That's right.  She has plenty of legal experience -- as the consigliere for the criminal organization called Goldman Sachs.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
VIACOM/CBS WANTS YOU TO THINK IT WAS A SUMMER INTERNSHIP!!!!!!!




Elena Kagan's Goldman Sachs "Connection"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504365_162-20004522-504365.html
May 10, 2010 3:02 AM

Paul Campos may be right to worry that Elena Kagan's track record doesn't suggest much about her judicial philosophy. And Senate inquisitors may unearth issues that some find will troubling during Kagan's upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings. But we're not even there yet and already the knives are coming out - but not from the right. It's the left that's going after the White House's nominee.


Serving as a very capable kvetcher-in-chief, Salon's Glenn Greenwald, has assembled a bill of particulars that sum up the some of the doubts heard from the left about Kagan's suitability to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. (Greenwald has a more in-depth critique of Kagan here.

I don't have any personal passion for or against Kagan's nomination, but frankly, some of the complaints are, at best, borderline.

Let's focus on the most explosive and, I think, the most ludicrous: Her supposed "connection" to Goldman Sachs. Greenwald links to Digby, who links to USA Today -gotta love those links - which notes that Kagan received $10,000 in 2008 for serving as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. Well, as the noted constitutional scholar and former New Jersey Nets forward Derrick Coleman was wont to exclaim on occasion, whoop-de-damn-do. Fact is that the "Digby" post offers nothing in the way of evidence that points to a nefarious connection. Read a little further, though, and you'll find the author's real point: "I think Supreme Court confirmation battles are ideologically instructive for the nation and are one of the few times when it's possible for people to speak at length about their philosophical worldview. Liberals have to stop running from this. Allowing the other side to define us is killing us."

There you have it. This is really about politics and dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Some on the lib-left would like the White House to tack far harder in their direction and they are not pleased at his political instinct to move toward the middle. That's an argument they can have, though now it looks as if Kagan will get caught in the cross-fire.

Back to Greenwald. He also cites Sam Stein of Huffington Post. But Stein similarly brings nothing of real linterest to the table. The two reports that the HuffPo includes of the advisory council from 2005 and 2008 don't advance the conspiracy case one inch. The entire exercise is basically a setup for an anonymous quote from someone identified as "a prominent progressive."

"I just don't understand why the Administration would want to makes themselves and their nominee vulnerable to the opposition at a time when American skepticism of Wall Street is at an all time high...this is like handing the Republicans the mantle of populism just for trying to oppose Kagen's (sic) confirmation."

Is it really?

Like Greenwald, Stein's post makes much of the USA Today piece. But that article similarly fails to clinch the argument that Kagan crossed an ethical line. In this instance, though, the author did manage to get someone on the record-judicial nominations specialist Lee Epstein of Northwestern University Lee Epstein-opining that the Goldman Sachs word may "make things more complicated for her."

And so it may. Goldman Sachs is radioactive for obvious reasons these days. But Kagan's limited gig as an advisor to the now-tarnished investment house had nothing to do with creating phony CDOs or engaging in market manipulation. It was a freelance gig to supplement her day job. If anybody's got evidence to suggest otherwise, they ought to get it into the public record.



THESE WILL BE THE TALKING POINTS....

-FREELANCE

-GIG

-LIMITED

LOOK FOR THE TALKING POINTS.  SHE WAS WITH GOLDMAN SACHS FOR 5 YEARS. WHY DOES SHE NEED TO SUPPLEMENT INCOME BY WORKING AS A DIRECTOR FOR GOLDMAN SACHS? I GUESS BARNEY FRANK WAS SUPPLEMENTNG INCOME WITH HIS PEDOPHILE PROSTITUTION RING THAT WAS RUN OUT OF HIS BASEMENT!

IF IT REALLY WAS NOTHING, THEN SUBMIT ALL RECORDS. WTF, YOU WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DO THIS BEFORE GETTING A JOB AT GOLDMAN SACHS, I GUESS THEIR VETTING PROCESS IS BETTER THAN NOMINEES FOR BEING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
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
Saturday, May 8, 2010 09:09 ET
The latest on Elena Kagan
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/08/kagan
By Glenn Greenwald

I've laid out my case against Elena Kagan as thoroughly as I could, but with several anonymous (i.e., unreliable) reports percolating that she's the likely choice and could be announced as early as Monday, it's worthwhile to note several recent items from others pertaining to her selection:

(1) University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos, who previously expressed shock at the paucity of Kagan's record and compared her to Harriet Miers, has a new piece in The New Republic entitled (appropriately): "Blank Slate."

(2) Digby examines what a Kagan selection would reveal about Obama, and she particularly focuses on Kagan's relationship to Goldman Sachs.  That relationship is relatively minor, but it is illustrative in several ways and will certainly be used by Republicans to advance their attacks on this administration as being inextricably linked with Wall Street.  The Huffington Post's Sam Stein has more on the Kagan/Goldman Sachs connection.

(3) Following up on the article published yesterday in Salon by four minority law professors -- which condemned Kagan's record on diversity issues as "shocking" and "indefensible for the 21st Century" -- Law Professor Darren Hutchinson of American University School of Law today writes that Kagan's record is "abysmal."

Regardless of your particular views on these matters, that diversity is both vital and fair in the hiring process has long been a central plank in progressive thinking.  It takes little creativity to imagine what Democrats would say about a Republican Supreme Court nominee with a hiring record similar to Kagan's.  The question is whether they will be as consistent as these law professors are in applying their claimed beliefs to their own side.  This is the issue that caused Linda Monk to rescind her endorsement of Kagan.  Will Kagan-defending progressives now suddenly say that diversity is irrelevant?  Will they try to claim that there were no qualified minorities for the Harvard Law School faculty?  How will they reconcile everything they've always said about diversity with Kagan's record as Dean?

(4)  This headline, from law.com, is a darkly amusing and quite revealing one to read about the Obama White House's front-runner to replace John Paul Stevens:  "Supreme Court Watchers Wonder:  How Conservative Is Kagan"?

(5) Law Professor Jonathan Adler persuasively argues why Diane Wood would be easier to confirm than Elena Kagan.

(6) The New York Times' Charlie Savage today explains that executive power is one key area where Obama's choice could bring about major changes to the Court, given that his selection would replace Justice Stevens, who was so stalwart about imposing limits on such power.  As Savage writes, Kagan's record (to the extent such a thing even exists) "suggests she might generally be more sympathetic toward the White House than Justice Stevens."

(7) Perhaps most revealing of all:  a new article in The Daily Caller reports on growing criticisms of Kagan among "liberal legal scholars and experts" (with a focus on the work I've been doing), and it quotes the progressive legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as follows:  "The reality is that Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks."  Yesterday on Twitter, Matt Yglesias supplied the rationale for this mentality:  "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama."

Just think about what that means.  If the choice is Kagan, you'll have huge numbers of Democrats and progressives running around saying, in essence:  "I have no idea what Kagan thinks or believes about virtually anything, and it's quite possible she'll move the Court to the Right, but I support her nomination and think Obama made a great choice."  In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama's choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it's Obama choice.  Isn't that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism?  Democrats love to mock the Right for their propensity to engage in party-line, close-minded adherence to their Leaders, but compare what conservatives did with Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to what progressives are almost certain to do with Obama's selection of someone who is, at best, an absolute blank slate.

One of the very first non-FISA posts I ever wrote that received substantial attention (uniformly favorable attention from progressives) was this post, from February, 2006, about the cult of personality that subsumed the Right during the Bush era.  The central point was that conservatives supported anything and everything George Bush did, regardless of how much it comported with their alleged beliefs and convictions, because loyalty to him and their Party, along with a desire to keep Republicans in power, subordinated any actual beliefs.  Even Bill Kristol -- in a 2006 New York Times article describing how Bruce Bartlett had been ex-communicated from the conservative movement for excessively criticizing George Bush -- admitted that personal allegiance to Bush outweighed conservative principles in the first term and that "Bush was the movement and the cause." 

To say that "Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks," based on the rationale that "Clinton & Obama like and trust her, and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama" -- even if they know nothing about her, even if she might move the Court to the Right -- seems to me to be an exact replica of what I described four years ago.
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: ****Shhh, Elena Kagan has been with Goldman Sachs for 5 years, shhh
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2010, 06:38:57 am »
She is the solicitor general, so she prevented cases to be submitted to the supreme court which had to do with Goldman.

UNBELIEVABLE!
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: ****Shhh, Elena Kagan has been with Goldman Sachs for 5 years, shhh
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2010, 06:44:14 am »
Obama’s Supreme Pick Connected to Larry Summers, Goldman Sachs, Cass Sunstein
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-supreme-pick-connected-to-larry-summers-goldman-sachs-cass-sunstein/
NJ.com
May 10, 2010

Editor’s note: If Elena Kagan sits on the Supreme Court it will be business as usual for Wall Street and the New World Order.

This apparent Obama nominee is unusual. She’s never been a prosecutor or attorney general, or defense attorney or Legal Aid litigator or sitting judge. In fact, she’s never been a lawyer in a trial…. never. Until her appointment as Solicitor General last year, she hadn’t argued before a court; so her very first, maiden argument, was before the United States Supreme Court last year!



Kagan’s connections to Summers are interesting. She was a professor there when Summers arrived from his work at Treasury, under Bill Clinton, to deregulate banks and derivatives to get the gambling moving…guaranteed by the taxpayer. As President Summers of Harvard from 2001 to 2006, Kagan thrived. She was made a full professor, then Summers tapped her to be the Dean of Harvard Law. Her pet peeve there was to keep the American military and ROTC off campus because she disputes the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provisions put in place by Clinton. In 2008, Kagan got money as an advisor to Goldman Sachs global investment house. Meanwhile, she made Cass Sunstein, who is now an advisor to Obama too, a full professor at Harvard. He has suggested the concept of marriage be discontinued. He also has argued that dogs and cats should have “standing” to sue in court.

Read entire article
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: ****Shhh, Elena Kagan has been with Goldman Sachs for 5 years, shhh
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2010, 06:48:03 am »
Top Five Risks Committee at Goldman Sachs includes another member of the advisory team, perhaps he might know her (that committee looks totally run by globalist bankster pigs):



http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/global-markets-institute/past-research-and-conferences/past-conferences/top-five-risks-docs/top-five-risk-bios.pdf

Mario Monti
PRESIDENT, BOCCONI UNIVERSITY
CHAIRMAN, BRUEGEL
ADVISOR, GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL
Mario Monti is the President of UniversitĂ  Bocconi, Milan and Chairman
of Bruegel, the European Economic Policy think tank based in Brussels.
He is also an International Advisor to Goldman Sachs and a member of the
Research Advisory Council for the Global Market Institute.
He is a member
of the Commission pour la libération de la croissance française created by
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and chaired by Jacques Attali and EU
Coordinator for the Trans-European project on the electricity interconnection
between France and Spain, nominated by the European Commission.
He is also a member of the International Advisory board of The Coca Cola
Company and a member of the Senior European Advisory board of Moody’s.
He was a member of the European Commission for ten years, first in charge
of the Internal Market, financial services and tax policy (1995-1999) then of
Competition (1999-2004).
Born in Varese, Italy, in 1943, he graduated from Bocconi University in 1965.
After graduate studies at Yale University, he taught at the Universities of
Trento and Turin. He later returned to Bocconi as Professor of Economics,
Director of the Institute of Economics, founding Chairman of the Paolo Baffi
Center, founding Chairman of IGIER, Rector and, from 1994, President of
the University.
His publications concern in particular monetary and financial economics,
public finance, European integration and competition. He served as Chairman
of the Treasury Committee on the Italian credit system, member of the
Ministry of Industry Committee to draft Italy’s first competition law, member
of the Committee chaired by Eric Roll on the independence of the Bank
of England.
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: ****Shhh, Elena Kagan has been with Goldman Sachs for 5 years, shhh
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2010, 06:59:23 am »
She is the solicitor general, so she prevented cases to be submitted to the supreme court which had to do with Goldman.

UNBELIEVABLE!


  If the average person in America knew about Goldman, they would all be locked up.  The heck with auditing  the Fed.

  AUDIT GOLDMAN SACHS.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline tritonman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
Does anyone know what faith of kagen?

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Does anyone know what faith of kagen?

you mean like religion? she is jewish as commented upon by every CoIntelPro Hal Turner website. They are playing the anti-semite card (like Obama with the race card) to stop rational discourse about her banking ties. this is discussed in reply #41 above.

So her faith really seems to be the same as Soetoro's ... the faith of one world under Goldman Sachs
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
Fluff piece that goes into some background, but just like Soetoro, there is a full blackout on the real issues.



Kagan chose a careful path to Washington
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_15057628
Associated Press
Posted: 05/10/2010 08:17:42 PM MDT


WASHINGTON — She was a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family's rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge's robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice.

She was the razor-sharp newspaper editor and history major at Princeton who examined American socialism, and the Supreme Court clerk for a legal giant, Thurgood Marshall, who nicknamed her "Shorty." She was the reformed teenage smoker who confessed to the occasional cigar as she fought Big Tobacco for the Clinton administration, and the literature lover who reread Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" every year.

She was the opera-loving, poker-playing, glass-ceiling-shattering first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School, where she reached out to conservatives (she once held a dinner to honor Justice Antonin Scalia) and healed bitter rifts on the faculty with gestures as simple as offering professors free lunch, just to get them talking.

Elena Kagan has been all of these things, charting a careful and, some might say, calculated path — never revealing too much of herself, never going too far out on a political limb — that has led her to the spot she occupies today: the first female solicitor general of the United States, who won confirmation with the support of seven Republicans, and now, at 50, President Barack Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.


"Elena is open-minded, pragmatic and progressive," said Walter Dellinger, an acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration who is close to both Kagan and the White House. "Each of those qualities will appeal to some, and not to others.

"Her open-mindedness may disappoint some who want a sure liberal vote on almost every issue," Dellinger said. "Her pragmatism may disappoint those who believe that mechanical logic can decide all cases. And her progressive personal values will not endear her to the hard right. But that is exactly the combination the president was seeking."

In some respects, Kagan's traits — her desire to build consensus through persuasion, her people skills, her ability to listen to others — mirror those Obama sees in himself; Monday, he cited her temperament as one reason he picked her. They are qualities that the president hopes will play out in a leadership role on a deeply divided court. While Kagan has cited Marshall as one she most admires, some expect her to behave more like the center-left Justice David Souter, who retired last year, or the master tactician Justice John Paul Stevens, whom she would replace if confirmed.

Kagan's paper trail is scant, her academic writings painstakingly nonideological. While Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a fellow New Yorker and Princeton graduate, has written and spoken extensively about her childhood, Kagan, the daughter of a lawyer and a schoolteacher, the granddaughter of immigrants, is more private. During her academic and public life, she has rarely spoken of her political beliefs.

Yet as a young writer for The Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton, Kagan offered insight into her worldview. She had spent the summer of 1980 working to elect a liberal Democrat, Elizabeth Holtzman, to the Senate. On election night, Kagan drowned her sorrow in vodka and tonic as Ronald Reagan took the White House and Holtzman lost to "an ultraconservative machine politician," she wrote, named Alfonse D'Amato.

"Where I grew up — on Manhattan's Upper West Side — nobody ever admitted to voting for Republicans," Kagan wrote, in a kind of Democrat's lament. She described the Manhattan of her childhood, where those who won office were "real Democrats — not the closet Republicans that one sees so often these days but men and women committed to liberal principles and motivated by the ideal of an affirmative and compassionate government."

It was perhaps the last time Kagan shared her political views so openly. Last year, at her confirmation hearing to become solicitor general, senators focused less on her politics than on whether she was too much in the ivory tower, with too little lawyerly experience to argue cases before the nation's highest court. The experience question will surely come up again, given that Kagan has never been a judge.

"One of the things I would hope to bring to the job is not just book learning, not just the study that I've made of constitutional and public law, but of a kind of wisdom and judgment, a kind of understanding of how to separate the truly important from the spurious," Kagan said. "I like to think that one of the good things about me is that I know what I don't know and that I figure out how to learn it when I need to learn it."

In the 1970s, at Hunter College High School, Kagan was a standout in a school of ultrabright girls. At least one classmate there, Natalie Bowden, remembers she had an ambitious dream: to become a Supreme Court justice.

"That was a goal from the very beginning," Bowden said. The school was and remains one of New York's elite public high schools. It drew girls from across the city and an array of backgrounds — all admitted on the strength of their performance on an entrance exam, rather than money or family connections.

Kagan, the middle child of three, grew up in a family that embraced such values. Kagan's mother, Gloria, who died two years ago, taught fifth and sixth grade at Hunter College Elementary School, which Elena attended. Her brothers followed their mother's footsteps. Marc, a onetime subway worker and union activist, teaches social studies at the Bronx High School of Science, while Irving teaches social studies at Hunter College High.

Kagan, who has never married, adopted her father's love of opera and the law. She brought a chuckle out of the senators at her confirmation hearing when she called herself "a famously excellent teacher." But family friends say, she is her father's daughter.

Robert Kagan, who died in 1994, represented tenant associations whose rental apartments were being converted to co-ops.

"He could deal with people in extremely difficult circumstances," said William Lubic, Kagan's law partner of 20 years. "That was his talent. I firmly believe that that's what his daughter got from their relationship."
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: ****Shhh, Elena Kagan has been with Goldman Sachs for 5 years, shhh
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2010, 07:27:00 am »
  If the average person in America knew about Goldman, they would all be locked up.  The heck with auditing  the Fed.

  AUDIT GOLDMAN SACHS.

yup, how much of the government does Goldman own?
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


  Remember this BS?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXWTdTnhebs


      Soetoro-We're the Most Transparent and Ethical Administration in U.S. History!
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 06:12 ET
How people spew total falsehoods on TV
By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/11/lessig/index.html
(updated below)

I appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show last night to articulate the case against Elena Kagan, and was then followed by Kagan friend and defender Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School, who spent five minutes (in my absence) trying to discredit me and what I said (video of the two segments is below).  Although I would have preferred an opportunity to address the accusations Lessig was making about me through an interactive exchange, I was glad Rachel presented both sides of the debate.  But there is one serious accusation that Lessig spouted that is so blatantly and inexcusably false that I feel compelled to highlight it, particularly since I was unable to respond last night.  This is what Lessig said when referencing "this work [Kagan] had written when she wrote this piece for the Harvard Law Review" in 2001:


This is another area where Glenn has just flatly misstated the case.  In his piece on Democracy Now [sic] on April 13, he said that in that article, she talked about the power of the President to indefinitely detain anyone around the world.

Now, that article was written before George Bush, before 9/11, and before George Bush articulated anything about this power.  It has nothing to do with the power of the President to detain anybody.  The power of the unitary executive that George Bush articulated -- this kind of uber power of unitary executive -- was nowhere even hinted at in Elena's article.  Yet Glenn has repeatedly asserted that she is George Bush, and that is just flatly wrong. 


If I were listening to that and had no familiarity with what I had written, I'd have thought:  Wow, that Glenn Greenwald is either completely dishonest or a total idiot; how can he go around claiming that Kagan's 2001 law review article defended Bush detention policies when it was written before those policies were even implemented and had nothing to do with those policies?  People questioning the Kagan pick obviously have no credibility.  And that, of course, is exactly the impression Lessig's accusation was intended to create.

Except it's totally false.  I've never said, believed or even hinted at any such thing -- let alone "repeatedly asserted" it.  Lessig just made that up out of thin air and, knowing nobody was there to dispute it, unleashed it on national television.  Kagan's comments embracing indefinite detention powers came in her 2008 Solicitor General confirmation hearing when answering Lindsey Graham:  please see Law Professor Jonathan Turley's superb analysis on that exchange.  Her position on detention was expressed there, not in her 2001 Law Review article, and -- contrary to Lessig' inexcusably false accusations -- I never, ever claimed otherwise.  In fact, here is what I wrote about her 2001 law review article in "The Case Against Elena Kagan":


The only other real glimpse into Kagan's judicial philosophy and views of executive power came in a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article (.pdf), in which she defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress.  This view that it is the President rather than Congress with primary control over administrative agencies became known, before it was distorted by the Bush era, as the theory of the "unitary executive." I don't want to over-simplify this issue or draw too much importance from it; what Kagan was defending back then was many universes away from what Bush/Cheney ended up doing, and her defense of Clinton's theories of administrative power was nuanced, complex and explicitly cognizant of the Constitutional questions they might raise.


How can Larry Lessig possibly say on television that I claimed the 2001 Kagan law review article defended Bush's detention powers when I explicitly wrote that the article was about Clinton's domestic policies; that she was discussing the unitary executive theory "before it was distorted by the Bush era"; and that "what Kagan was defending back then was many universes away from what Bush/Cheney ended up doing"?  Let's repeat that:  "what Kagan was defending was many universes away fromwhat Bush/Cheney ended up doing."  I know full well that Kagan's 2001 law review article was about domestic policy and not Bush detention policy -- that's as obvious as 2+2=4 and I've never believed or stated anything close to what Lessig said.  In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.  One has to be completely disconnected from any concerns about factual accuracy to say something like that in light of what I actually wrote.

Worse, compare what I actually said in that April 13 Democracy Now appearance that he cited to what Lessig claimed I said there:


LESSIG, last night:  "In his piece on Democracy Now on April 13, [Glenn] said that in that article, [Kagan] talked about the power of the President to indefinitely detain anyone around the world."

ME, Democracy Now, April 13:  "And what little there is to see comes from her confirmation hearing as Solicitor General and a law review article she wrote in 2001, in which she expressed very robust defenses of executive power, including the power of the president to indefinitely detain anybody around the world as an enemy combatant, based on the Bush-Cheney theory that the entire world is a battlefield and the US is waging a worldwide war."


When describing her views on executive authority and detention power, I explicity cited two sources of information to know Kagan's views:  (1) her 2001 law review article (which did indeed advocacte robust executive authority) and (2) "her confirmation hearing as Solicitor General" (which is where she described her views on detention powers, advocating exactly the view I attributed to her).  To claim, as Lessig did, that I "said that in that article, [Kagan] talked about  the power of the President to indefinitely detain anyone around the world" is blatantly false.  She did that at her confirmation hearing, not in her 2001 article.  If Lessig misread what I said in that one interview, that'd be one thing, but he claimed last night that I've "repeatedly asserted" it. 

This isn't the most significant falsehood in the world, but when someone like Larry Lessig launches such an obvious, concerted falsehood about you on television and you have no opportunity then to correct it, you feel compelled to respond.  That's what I'm doing here.  I've had very constructive exchanges with Lessig in the past, still respect him (despite his defense of Obama's violation of his vow to filibuster telecom immunity), and believe his statements last night were the by-product not of malice but of the fact that he's defending a long-time friend of his.  Still, these are the kind of falsehoods that so regularly get spouted in our political discussions.  And what's really going on here, more generally, is clear.   

The White House has created a "war room" to attack Kagan critics.  As Politico noted yesterday, the Kagan announcement -- understandably and revealingly so -- prompted "a stronger opposition from the left than the right."  Think about that.  Miguel Estrada, whom Democrats blocked from an appellate court position on the ground that he was a right-wing radical, endorsed Kagan for the Court today.  A separate article details how numerous progressive legal scholars (who have nothing to do with me) have raised very serious concerns about Kagan's glaring lack of a record and what appears to be her support for at least some core right-wing views of executive power (including ones the Obama White House has adopted).

The White House, for obvious reasons, wants to discredit those raising such concerns.  Now that Kagan is Obama's choice, she's the Democratic cause.  The entire Democratic Party machinery -- the ossified DC progressive establishment, the Obama army, her friends from Harvard -- will be devoted to aggressively defending her and attacking her critics.  This whole debate over Kagan has already broken down along clear tribal lines, and any progressive opposing or even questioning Kagan will be seen as a Traitor to the Cause.  And Kagan, having spent the last two decades in academia and as a Democratic official in Washington, has a lot of influential friends.  As Marc Ambinder put it:  "Kagan is part of the club."  She certainly is.

That's all well and good.  Aggressively attacking critics is a normal and inevitable part of the process.  But if the Democratic Party wants to put someone on the Supreme Court for the next 30 to 40 years about whom so little is known -- even ultimate Court sycophant Tom Goldstein said of Kagan:  "The last nominee about whose views we knew so little was David Souter. . . . I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade" -- then others have not just the right, but the duty, to raise concerns and demand more information.  Trying to discredit those who do that is how party appartchiks function, and that's fine.  But making things up and spouting clear falsehoods definitely isn't.

UPDATE:   Lessig and I have spent the day emailing with one another in order to resolve these disputes (even as the melodramatic FIGHT!! pieces proliferated).  We both essentially agree that the rhetoric and accusations escalated more quickly than either anticipated (or was really warranted), and that this is really just a good faith dispute over an issue (the Kagan nomination) that desperately needs to be aired and debated (and both said so on Twitter).  Lessig has appended a similar note to the response he wrote at TheHuffington Post today, and we're going to do a Bloggingheads session this week to examine these and other issues.
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 citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/opinion/11tue1.html?hp

Re. Kagan's thin opinion record.

Good op/ed piece from today's New York Times.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
An Updated List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government Including Elena Kagan
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/46267
By: fflambeau Saturday May 8, 2010 9:13 pm


I. Introduction.

This essay shows the pervasive influence of Goldman Sachs and its units (like the Goldman-Robert Rubin-funded Hamilton Project embedded in the Brookings Institution) in the Obama government. These names are in addition to those compiled on an older such list and published here at FDL. In the future, I will combine the names here and those on the earlier article but I urge readers to look at the earlier list too (links below). Combined, this is the largest and most comprehensive list of such ties yet published.

For readability and clarity, I have NOT included many of the details and links that are found in the earlier article so as to make this one less repetitive and easier to read. So, if you want more documentation, please look at my earlier diary here at Firedoglake called "A List of Goldman Sachs People in the Obama Government: Names Attached To The Giant Squid’s Tentacles" published on April 27, 2010.

Note too that I have intentionally used the words, "Obama government" rather than "Obama administration" because some of these connections are not technically within his administration. These would include ambassadorial appointments and Supreme Court appointments (like that anticipated for Elena Kagan). This also includes lobbyists like Dick Gephardt who has multiple connections/input to Obama and to Goldman Sachs and the Hamilton Project.

In a similar vein, I use a broader definition than just Goldman Sachs (GS) because GS has funded, along with its ex-leader Robert Rubin, a right-leaning think tank called the Hamilton Project and embedded it within the Brookings Institution. Some of its activities thus also spill over into Brookings Institution projects which doubtlessly was one of the clever reasons Rubin and GS did this, along with providing their essentially neo-con/neo-liberal think tank with camouflage. This has worked beautifully for GS and Rubin as most writers–even critical ones like Matt Taibbi–seem unaware of the important doings of the Hamilton Project. The Hamilton Project has 32 people sitting on its Advisory Council and many have ties to Goldman Sachs, Rubin and the Obama government. Of the first four Directors of the Hamilton Project, three work in the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the most recent Director of the Hamilton Project came from academia and from a position as economic adviser to the Obama administration to Hamilton in the sort of "revolving door" that Washington is famous for.

The Hamilton Project (named after Alexander Hamilton whose most famous dictum was "The People are a Great Beast") is essentially pushing for cuts in entitlements (like social security), outsourcing American jobs, and for more NAFTA-type agreements. This is essentially the game plan for the Obama administration, not surprising since Barack Obama was the inaugural speaker at the Hamilton Project (and Joe Biden spoke there just weeks ago).

NOTE: This diary and its predecessor are the result of a lot of painstaking work. I am sure there are other Goldies out there in the Obama administration who I have missed. If so, PLEASE let me know by dropping their name in a comment below.

II. Additional Names of Goldies serving with Obama.

Enough background information, let’s reveal the Goldies with connections/jobs within the Obama government (or with "revolving door" status). For your convenience, I’ve listed the new names to the list separately and in the first section, led off by Elena Kagan because the buzz is that she is Obama’s pick to the Supreme Court.

NEW GOLDIES REVEALED (with respect to prior article):

KAGAN, ELENA.

Kagan was appointed by Obama to serve as the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, often called the 10th Supreme Court Justice, is the person who argues the U.S. government side of cases before the court. Buzz has it that she is also Obama’s next pick to the Supreme Court, perhaps as early as this Monday.

At any rate, she’s already in the Obama government as Solicitor General. She also has ties to Goldman Sachs. From 2005 to 2008, according to USA Today and other sources, Kagan served as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. Matt Kelley of USA Today wrote in his article, "Possible Supreme Court Pick Had Ties to Goldman Sachs" that Kagan received $10,000 from Goldman Sachs for her services in 2008, per federal disclosure forms. But since she was doing the same thing in 2005, 2006, and 2006, it would appear that she pulled in $40,000 from Goldman Sachs for what appears to be sitting in on one day sessions looking at big issues affecting the global economy. $40,000 grand for so little time is a nice gig if you can get it (and she likely got expenses too) for so little time. It’s not a huge amount but it is enough to affect a player’s mind.

Here are some questions that Senators on the Judiciary Committee might want to ask of Kagan:

1) Can you produce all the paperwork/receipts related to your ties to Goldman Sachs?

2) Did you report the GS payments as income on your income tax returns (lots of people in the Obama administration (like Timothy Geithner) or wanting to be (like Tom Daschle) seem to have trouble filling out proper IRS forms.

3) Will you recuse yourself in any cases brought before you at the Supreme Court (if confirmed) that have any connection, no matter how remote, to Goldman Sachs or its entities?

4) As Solicitor General of the United States, have you handled (defined largely) any cases relating to Goldman Sachs or its entities?
Have you given advice on any such cases?

5) Have you had any dealings with The Hamilton Project? This includes speeches given there, conferences attended, papers published etc.

BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P.

Here is a murky connection (but an important one) between Obama and Goldman Sachs. Berkowitz serves as the Chairman, Board of Directors of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINAP). It is an important Washington think tank that gives input to Obama. It was established by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1985, according to Wikipedia. People affiliated with WINAP are a virtual Who’s Who of foreign policy including Henry Kissinger, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Richard Perle.

Berkowitz also is Managing Director of BlackRock and sits on the Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs funded Hamilton Project.

BlackRock is a global investmentment management firm with over $3.35 trillion under management. There is a virtual revolving door of hiring and acquisitions between BlackRock and Goldman Sachs as reported here.

DUDLEY, WILLIAM C.

Dudley, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York web site:

became the 10th president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on January 27, 2009. In that capacity, he serves as the vice chairman and a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the group responsible for formulating the nation’s monetary policy.

Mr. Dudley was a partner and managing director at Goldman, Sachs & Company and was the firm’s chief U.S. economist for a decade. Earlier in his career at Goldman Sachs, he had a variety of roles including a stint when he was responsible for the firm’s foreign exchange forecasts. Prior to joining Goldman Sachs in 1986, he was a vice president at the former Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Mr. Dudley was an economist at the Federal Reserve Board from 1981 to 1983.

Dudley seems to have Geithner’s old job, passed from one Goldie to the next.

EFFRON, BLAIR W.

Effron is a money man. As a bundler for the 2008 Obama campaign, he raised more than $100,000. According to this web site he also was a "Mega Donor" to Obama in 2008, giving more than $28,500 though committees supporting Obama. His wife is also a major contributor, giving tens of thousands of dollars.

Effron is a founding partner of Centerview Partners LLC. Their web site indicates he has executed over $400 billion in transactions.

Effron is also on the Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs/Robert Rubin funded Hamilton Project.

FROMAN, Michael.

Froman (born August 20, 1962) is deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, a position to be held jointly at the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. His responsibilities will include serving as the White House liaison to the G7, G8 and G20 summits of economic powers.[

He's on my prior list but his name was misspelled there (as Frohman). Froman's days with Obama go back to Harvard Law School. Froman appears to be the original link between Robert Rubin/Goldman Sachs and Obama.

From Wikipedia:

>Froman received a bachelor's degree in Public and International Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University in 1985, a doctorate in International Relations from Oxford University and a law degree from Harvard Law School where he was a classmate of Barack Obama[2][3], and also an associate of Obama’s on the Harvard Law Review.[4]



After Harvard, Froman had lost touch with Barack Obama until Froman heard of Obama’s Senate run. Froman volunteered at that point to help, began raising funds for the candidate, and introduced the candidate to Robert Rubin, whom Froman had followed from the Treasury Department to Citigroup [Froman served as Rubin's Chief of Staff] after the Clinton administration.[4] Before moving to the Obama administration, Froman most recently was a managing director of Citigroup’s Citi Alternative Investments Institutional Clients Group, where he was head of infrastructure and sustainable development [5]. He also served on 12-member advisory board of the Obama campaign’s transition team.[1]

this source provides new information indicating Frohman, who was Mr. Goldman Sach’s former Chief of Staff, as an "informal adviser" to Obama. They spell his name as Froman, Michael.

FUDGE, ANNE.

Obama just appointed Fudge to his budget deficit reduction committee (whose real goal, like that of the Hamilton Project, is to cut entitlements). Fudge has been the public relations craftsman for some of America’s largest corporations. She sits, according to the Washington Post, as a Trustee of the Brookings Institution within which the Hamilton Project is embedded.

GEPHARDT, RICHARD (aka "DICK") A.

Gephardt is one of the movers and shakers in the Democratic party and served as the Democratic Majority Leader of the House from 1989 to 1995. While he doesn’t have an "official position" in the Obama administration his name was floated as a possible VP to Obama in 2008. Like so many ex-politicians, Gephardt has set up a consulting firm that has its fingers in just about every pie in the Obama government. Gephardt, for instance, advised the Obama administration, according to the New York Times, that universal health coverage could not pass in 2009 and urged Obama to "defer that goal." That’s what the people Gephardt takes money from wanted and that’s also what Obama did.

Here’s more from The New York Times:

One old friend links Mr. Gephardt’s assessment to his lucrative new career as a lobbyist. “He’s advising a lot of big corporations,” said Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists’ union.

Wikipedia says that:

Dick Gephardt started Gephardt Group in January 2005 and is currently its President and CEO. Gephardt Group is a multi-disciplined consulting firm focused on helping clients improve Labor Relations, develop Political and Public Policy Strategies and enhance Business Results by gaining access to new markets or partners.[15]

According to Wikipedia:

is also an active consultant for Goldman Sachs.

Gephardt also sits on the Advisory Council of the Hamilton Project funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs.

MURPHY, PHILLIP.

Obama appointed Murphy to serve as his Ambassador to Germany. In the 1990’s, Murphy, who worked for decades with Goldman Sachs, served as GS’s head of its German offices. From 1997-1999, Murphy served as President of Goldman Sachs, Asia (during the Asian economic crisis). In all, according to Wikipedia, Murphy spent 23 years at Goldman Sachs including as a Senior Director of the firm in 2003 before retiring from GS in 2006.

GRANOFF, MICHAEL D.

Granoff is a money man, and contributed lots of bucks as a "mega donor" to the Obama campaign. At least $28,500 according to Public Citizen.

Granoff is President, CEO and Founder of Pomona Capital, a venture capital group.

Granoff is also one of the 19 members of the Goldman Sachs-Robert Rubin funded Hamilton Project.

LIDDY, EDWARD MICHAEL.

Liddy was, until recently, the CEO of AIG which, during the Obama administration, was essentially taken over by the government. He served in high positions at Goldman Sachs including : Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2003-2008). He was picked to the Goldman board by none other than Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs who was Bush’s Treasury Secretary who with Obama’s Treasury Secretary (Geithner) fashioned TARP.

Wikipedia reports:

Liddy garnered national headlines in October 2008 for defending a controversial $440,000 AIG retreat for top-performing insurance salesmen at the luxury St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California. The retreat, which was held shortly after the U.S. government rescued AIG from insolvency with $84 billion in loans, included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa. In testimony before the U.S. House Oversight Committee, Liddy stated that such retreats "are standard practice in our industry."[11] During the U.S. presidential debate on October 7, 2008, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama mentioned the retreat and said, "The Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired."[12]

But that’s not what happened. Instead, Barack Obama as President kept Mr. Liddy on while AIG was essentially in receivership under the Obama administration.

How about this for a conflict of interest, again as reported by Wikipedia:

Liddy owns 27,129 shares in Goldman Sachs, at the time worth just over $3 million.[18] In April 2009 members of Congress called for Liddy to sell these shares, as they create a conflict of interest due to Goldman Sachs’ receipt of bailout money.[19] About two-thirds of Liddy’s holding is restricted and cannot be sold until May 31.[18]

Liddy announced on May 21, 2009 that he would resign as AIG Chairman and CEO when replacements were found, suggesting that the two roles be split.[20] Liddy was not paid for his time at AIG.[21] On August 3, 2009, Robert Benmosche was named President and CEO of AIG.[7]

NIEDERAUER, DUNCAN.

Niederauer is CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. While a private entity, it is heavily regulated by the government and has close government ties. Niederauer, for instance, is a frequent speaker at Federal Reserve events:

New York Stock Exchange Euronext CEO Duncan L. Niederauer delivered the keynote address today at the fourth annual global summit on financial literacy hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and Visa Inc.

He has an extensive Goldman Sachs background:

He joined NYSE Group following a 22-year career at Goldman Sachs. He served as a Managing Director of Goldman Sachs since 1997 and was responsible for U.S. cash equities operations, including Institutional and Member Firm Client Group sales and client services for … both the New York Stock Exchange and NYSE Arca. Mr. Niederauer was previously a Partner at The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (United States) ("GS") where he held many positions.

PERRY, RICHARD.

Perry is an Obama supporter, adviser and fund raiser. He worked for Goldman Sachs and is on the Goldman Sachs’funded, Hamilton Project’s Advisory Council. He is also CEO of Perry Capital, a hedge fund. Perry owns the full floor penthouse at 1 Sutton Place in NYC and according to the Washington Examiner is one of 15 " fat cat Wall St. Banker" friends of Obama. These are the same "fat cats" that Obama sometimes flails out at in the press to pretend he’s a populist!

SHAFRAN, STEVEN.

Shafran served as an advisor/aide to Timothy Geithner especially on TARP. All of the advisers on that appear in a very murky fashion. And Shafran, like a lot of other TARP advisers, has extensive ties to Goldman as a executive for years. He’s especially shadowy, however. Here’s a link about him from CBS News.

THAIN, JOHN.

John Thain has served as an adviser to Timothy Geithner. Thain was President and Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs from 1999 to 2003.

TYSON, LAURA D’ANDREA.

An economic adviser to President Obama. Tyson is a Hamilton Project Advisory Council Member. The Hamilton Project as noted above was founded by Bob Rubin and Goldman Sachs and has close links to Obama personally.

III. COMBINED LIST OF GOLDIES TIED TO THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT.

This lists compiles the names above and those in the prior diary on this. For more detail on names not annotated in this diary, see the earlier diary linked here):

ALTMAN, ROGER.

BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P.

BIDEN, JOE.

BRAINARD, LAEL.

BUFFETT, WARREN.

CLINTON, HILLARY.

CRAIG, GREGORY. (revolving door)

DONILON, THOMAS.

DUDLEY, WILLIAM C.

EFFRON, BLAIR W.

ELMENDORF, DOUGLAS.

EMANUEL, RAHM.

FARRELL, DIANA.

FRIEDMAN, STEPHEN.

FROMAN, Michael.

FUDGE, ANNE.

FURMAN, JASON.

GALLOGLY, MARK.

GEITHNER, TIMOTHY.

GENSLER, GARY.

GEPHARDT, RICHARD (aka "DICK") A.

GREENSTONE, MICHAEL (revolving door to Hamilton Project)

HAMILTON PROJECT, THE

HORMATS, ROBERT.

KAGAN, ELENA.

KASHKARI, NEEL.

KORNBLUH, KAREN.

LEW, JACOB (AKA "JACK") J.

LIDDY, EDWARD MICHAEL.

LIPTON, DAVID A.

MINDICH, ERIC

MURPHY, PHILLIP.

NIEDERAUER, DUNCAN.

OBAMA, BARACK H.

ORSZAG, PETER.

PATTERSON, MARK.

PERRY, RICHARD.

RATTNER, STEVE.

REISCHAUER, ROBERT D.

RIVLIN, ALICE.

RUBIN, JAMES.

RUBIN, ROBERT.

SHAFRAN, STEVEN.

SPERLING, GENE.

STORCH, ADAM.

SUMMERS, LARRY.

THAIN, JOHN.

TYSON, LAURA D’ANDREA.

RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING:

1. Greg Gordon (McClatchy Newspapers), "Goldman’s White House Connections Raise Eyebrows" April 21, 2010.

2. Fflambeau, "With the Obama Administration Infested With Goldman Sachs People, How Real is the Obama/Democratic Attack on Big Banks" FDL Diary, April 21, 2010.

3. "More Investigations of Goldman Sachs, A Double-Edge Swords for Obama and Democrats"

4. Paul Street’s article showing that Obama held corporatist ideas long before elected and his indebtedness to the interests of big business.

5. Matthew Skomarovsky, "Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters", March 28, 2010 at Alternet.

6. Fflambeau, "A List of Goldman Sachs People in the Obama Administration: Names Attached to the Giant Squid’s Tentacles"

ESSENTIAL READING ON THE HAMILTON PROJECT AND ITS TIES TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION:

1. Kirk James Murphy, M.D. "The Hamilton Project: Same Corporatist Whine In New DLC Vessels." THE seminal article on the Hamilton Project which also features a video clip of then Senator Barack Obama talking about "my friend, Bob [Rubin]" and espousing cuts in entitlements and the "need" for more free trade pacts like NAFTA.

2. Fflambeau, "Obama’s ‘Smoking Gun’: His Hamilton Project Speech Shows His Links to Goldman, Entitlement Cuts, Part 1.

3. Fflambeau, "Obama’s ‘Smoking Gun’: His Hamilton Project Speech Shows His Links to Goldman, Entitlement Cuts, Part 2".

4. Another source for Obama’s Hamilton Project speech of April 2006. Contains video clip.

5. James Kirk Murphy, M.D., "Remember the Hamilton Project?" Dr. Murph’s latest look at the Hamilton Project.

6. David Sirota, "Wall Street Democrats Unveil Plan to Undermine Progressives", April 5, 2006.
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
White House's 'slickly-produced interview' of Supreme Court nominee leads to charges of 'propaganda'

‘Frustrated’ reporters get snippy about White House ‘interview’ with Kagan

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0512/reporters-frustrated-lack-access-kagan/
By Muriel Kane
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010 -- 12:29 pm

Every White House does its best to secure a positive spin on the messages it puts out. But where the Bush administration was notorious for its attempts to maintain tight control over the press pool, the Obama administration has shown an inclination to make an end run around the press entirely.

The latest example is the administration's posting of its own video interview of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on the White House blog, while indicating she would not be available for more formal press interviews. This led CBS News to report somewhat tartly, "While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today's White House briefing."

In recent weeks, the tension between the Obama administration and the press has become so apparent that one blogger at The Left Coaster felt a need to push back against it, writing, "The same White House press pool that let the Bush administration use them as a doormat as long as they were given access is now complaining about the Obama administration not giving them access, and hammering them for adverse coverage. ... These are the same people who let the Bush administration play them like a drum and let Jeff Gannon and other nuts join their ranks with little uproar because they were afraid of Rove and Ari Fleischer."

The Kagan matter, however, is potentially more serious than last month's complaints about Obama ditching the press pool to attend his daughter's soccer game. The latest fuss began when reporters learned on Tuesday that the White House had posted on its own website an interview, conducted by its official videographer Arun Chaudhary, in which Kagan spoke about her childhood, family, and career.
Story continues below...

As described by Mediaite, "From a PR standpoint, the short (3 min 22 sec), slickly-produced interview is a triumph, showcasing Kagan’s personality in a milieu of graceful camera changes and stylishly floating stills. ... Journalistically, you could argue that Kagan’s feet weren’t actually held to the fire here, or even a warm pair of slippers."

According to CBS, at Tuesday's press briefing, one reporter asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs,"Who did the interview? And can I have one?" After Gibbs replied that the interview was on the White House website, the reporter asked a second time if Kagan would like to do another interview and Gibbs replied, "She's not told me that, no."

"Tell her we're deeply frustrated," the reporter commented.

The CBS story did acknowledge that "it seems to be unprecedented for the nominee to be heard from at all before the confirmation hearings, other than in the initial introduction and in brief photo ops with senators." It noted, however, that the in-house interview represents a fresh example of "the Obama administration's policy of regularly using new media tools to go around traditional media."

The San Francisco Examimer, however, was far blunter. Its comment on the CBS story was headed "White House bypasses press for propaganda ‘interview’ of Supreme Court nominee" and remarked sarcastically, "Isn’t that generous of them? Why bother with an independent and free press when the White House is willing to do all of their hard work for them?"

At Fox News' "FoxNation" website, an extended excerpt from the CBS News story was posted under the even stronger headline, "Reporters Furious Over Kagan's WH Propaganda Video." And conservative blog Hot Air also ran with "White House issues Kagan propaganda video."

Even when it comes to new media, access to Kagan appears to be limited. ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper grumped in a Twitter posting on Tuesday, "i went to @elenakagan but got: 'This person has protected their tweets.' humph."

Tapper followed this up an hour later with a link to the White House video and the comment, "Bypassing the 'filter' > RT @BarackObama: Hear directly from Elena Kagan, my nominee for the United States Supreme Court."

The White House blog on which the video appears is maintained by Jesse Lee, who worked his way up from handing out anti-Iraq War leaflets to blogging for Nancy Pelosi and then running the DNC's 2008 rapid-response team. Now, according to whorunsgov.com, "as the online guru of the fledgling Obama White House, he is tasked with mending the occasionally contentious relationship between left-wing bloggers and Beltway politicians, harnessing the netroots reach and passion to spread the administration’s message."

Lee has, however, been known to employ the White House blog in a manner that might be more appropriate for the netroots, as when he directly called out Fox News last fall, writing, "Last night Fox News continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts to win the Olympics for the United States. ... Once again Fox News' Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings." This was followed a month later by an unsuccessful White House attempt to ban Fox News from a round of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg.

Lee's blog has also been accused by liberal bloggers of a lack of transparency. Last winter, for example, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake noted that Lee had promoted what he described as an "objective analysis" of health care reform by an expert who was actually a paid White House consultant.
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
glad to hear there are some journalists still actually being journalists!!

Offline Irobot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
  • SHOW HOST WANTED!
    • 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK
Kagan Involved In 9/11 Cover Up
« Reply #65 on: May 12, 2010, 12:58:51 pm »
12160  "Destroying the NWO"
Check out the blogs, videos, and discussions!!
http://12160.info/

RADIO HOST WANTED!!! 
Trolls R People 2

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Kagan Involved In 9/11 Cover Up
« Reply #66 on: May 12, 2010, 09:49:04 pm »
Kagan Involved In 9/11 Cover Up
http://www.infowars.com/kagan-involved-in-911-cover-up/


Good god she looks even more disgusting with every new picture/angle that surfaces  ???

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708

Be aware, the Bilderberg media may be hyping some BS polarizing issue concerning religion when she is a banker's puppet IMO. This is the most tame angle on the matter and sheds light on the complexity of the issue. Remember how Goldman protected Obama with the whole racist crap, well they are probably going to do the same with Kagan by saying anyone against her is anti-gay, anti-woman, or anti-semetic. Watch for it...

Elena Kagan: Jewish Ethnic Networking Eases the Path of a Liberal/Leftist to the Supreme Court
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Kagan.html
Kevin MacDonald May 20, 2009 [Almost a year ago]


Beware! Don't talk about...


Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
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 Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: Kagan Involved In 9/11 Cover Up
« Reply #69 on: May 13, 2010, 06:40:19 pm »
Good god she looks even more disgusting with every new picture/angle that surfaces  ???

She looks like Rodney Dangerfield's son! :-\
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Hey, I get no respect.

He's not mine, I tell ya.

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
Hey, I get no respect.

He's not mine, I tell ya.


LOL

Look at these clowns


Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith approves!!!

Quote from:


New York, NY, May 10, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued a statement in response to the President's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We congratulate Elena Kagan on her nomination to the Supreme Court.  She has already served this nation with distinction in a number of capacities, most recently as Solicitor General.  The granddaughter of immigrants, she has lived the American Dream (ethnic networking?), achieving one professional success after another (ethnic networking?),  and serving as a role model for many in the process.  

We applaud President Obama for having selected this distinguished lawyer (with no judicial experience), .  With her background in academia, private practice, and government service, if confirmed, she will undoubtedly bring an important new perspective (anti-Christian, anti-Consitution, pro-Communist, pro-feminist, pro-abortion, pro-torture, ect), to the work of the Court.  

Now it is the Senate's turn to fulfill its constitutional responsibility (cowtow to Goldman Sachs and roll over for the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC ect),  to thoroughly review Ms. Kagan's record and qualifications (Shouldn't take long at all becauese there's little to review). As this process moves forward, ADL will share with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee key issues they should explore (internet censorship, "hate" speech, stripping US citizens of their rights, pro-illegal immigration, anti-second amendment ect) with Ms. Kagan, as we have done with past nominees.

In considering this nomination, we urge political leaders in both parties to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in a manner that is thoughtful and reasoned.  It is our hope that the process will be civil and respectful, and will cast our American democracy in the best possible light.



Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith approves!!!


W T F ?

nice comments!

Everything about this nomination is insane. It is worse than Harriett Myers. Every time she accidently opened her mouth a bunch of unconstitutional nonsense flowed out of it.

I still think they are prepping for a bait and switch with Cass Sunstein.
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 wfy9621

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700


If you want to "disappear" speech, you may think disappearing people is a good idea.


If you don't know what "disappeared" means Google it.
Look up "Mothers of the Disappeared"
Read The Shock Doctrine
I am an American citizen, not an "American consumer".

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
re. the "bait and switch":

Harriet Myers.  I never could remember that name.  Blast from the past.

Wonder what she's up to nowadays anyway.

She was one of W's personal attorneys he tried to out on SCOTUS, right?

Seems like it was a million years ago.  My how time flies.

I could believe she was an intentional bait and switch.  Not sure about Kagan, I think she's the real choice, and I think she'll likely be approved, sadly, by our collaborationist congress.

Offline TheProxy

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • Invalidcookie.net
Posted this story a few days ago. I didn't know who elena Kagan was, so 50 percent of the time wiki tells me what i want to know. Scanned over it and saw that. The MSM makes her sound like a golden godess, when what she really is. The Dark Reaper of Freedoms. 
I bring a message Those who would try to take our freedom... Pray.
-----------------------------------------
http://invalidcookie.net

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
Another great article on Kagan from for the most part an honest liberal news site. Covers all the basis and not afraid to touch third rail issues. Good stuff here.

Is Elena Kagan the Best Legal Mind in the United States for the Supreme Court Bench?

Quote from:


Over the weekend, newspapers all across America announced that Elena Kagan was President Obama's number one pick for the Supreme Court. The question that should be asked is, "Why is she President Obama's number one pick?" It is a well-known fact that Ms. Kagan taught school at the University of Chicago Law School with President Obama and they were friends. However, American citizens should wonder: "Does her friendship with President Obama make her the best choice for the Supreme Court?" Surely, President Obama is not claiming that Ms. Kagan has the finest legal mind of any lawyer that he knows. With all that said and all the guessing games going on in Washington as to who is going to be appointed to the Supreme Court, it is fun to look at what President Obama is looking for in the next appointment to the Supreme Court. It is also important to examine why he may be considering Ms. Kagan and what we, as citizens, know about her from the press reports.

According to news articles, Ms. Kagan was born and raised in New York City on the Upper West Side of New York. Her father, Robert Kagan, was a founding partner in a real estate law firm located in Manhattan called Kagan & Lubic. Her mother, Gloria Kagan, was a schoolteacher at HunterCollege. She has two brothers, Marc Kagan and Irving Kagan, who are associated with HunterCollege. It is interesting to note that all over the blog world it is being reported that she is the cousin of Arch Neocons, Robert and Frederick Kagan. Their father, Donald Kagan, may very well be the brother of Elena's father, Robert Kagan. So it is clearly possible he is her uncle or cousin. Donald Kagan was also a college professor at HunterCollege and now teaches at Yale. However, to date, no one in the press has been brave enough to ask these leaders of the American Neocon movement if Elena Kagan is their niece and cousin. Elena has remained silent on the issue. It is important to note that Donald Kagan was at one time a Democrat. In the sixties at CornellUniversity, he changed and became a Republican. It has often been reported that the reason he changed is that he got upset that CornellUniversity would consider having a black studies department. After that incident, Donald Kagan became one of the founding Fathers of the American Neocon Movement. It would seem that the press would want to know what Ms. Kagan's family connections are to these members of a right wing fringe group but no one has asked. It is possible the reason why is that Robert Kagan, the son of Donald, writes for the Washington Post and is being protected by the media on this matter. The questions that need to be asked is; "What is President Obama thinking by appointing a woman to the United States Supreme Court who is kin to Arch Neocons?", if these reports on the blogs are true. Further, if these internet statements are true, does this explain the positions Ms. Kagan is taking in her job as Solicitor General?

Since becoming Solicitor General of the United States, Ms. Kagan has taken many unpopular positions on cases before the Supreme Court that needs to be reviewed by the public. The first set of cases that comes to mind are the political prosecution cases in Alabama and Mississippi. In one of the cases, Ms. Kagan has asked that the Supreme Court not review the United States vs. Siegelman matter. This is contrary to ninety-one US Attorney Generals demanding that the Supreme Court hear the case because of all the abuses of power by the prosecuting team from the DOJ and the United States attorney's office from the Middle District of Alabama. Clearly to ignore this matter one has to wonder about Ms. Kagan's possible Neocon roots. The second set of cases that comes to mind are the detainee cases where Ms. Kagan is taking the Arch Neocon position that detainee's have no rights and can be detained indefinitely. The third set of cases are the federal wire tapping cases in which Ms. Kagan apparently believes, like all good Arch Neocons, that American citizens have no rights not to be listened in on even when proper warrants have not been obtained by the government. Therefore, the question becomes, "Why is this woman considered a liberal and what is President Obama thinking when he is considering appointing her to the United Supreme Court bench?" One has to wonder if this is his position on these issues considering that prior to becoming President of the United States he was a constitutional law professor. Also on all these issues, he spoke out on the campaign trail against the position Ms. Kagan, Solicitor General is now taking under his administration. Clearly, it appears Ms. Kagan has no respect for constitutional rights and may be the most dangerous potential candidate for the bench.

Then the citizens have to think about whether Elena Kagan is some brilliant legal scholar. Is that what President Obama is after? To do that we will start by looking at her law career as a practicing lawyer. Ms. Kagan, when filling out her information sheets for solicitor general admitted she had never tried a case from start to finish. In fact, during the roughly two years that she was at Williams and Connolly, it does not look like she did much of anything except tote a few briefcases and help with a couple of motions. From there she went to the University of Chicago where she made friends with President Obama, who was another professor in her law department. She then got a position at the White House as a legal counsel to the President. The question I have is, "Why did President Bill Clinton hire her?" There is a rumor floating around that Donald Kagan recommended her. There is another rumor floating around that her former boss, Greg Craig, recommended her. Maybe President Clinton will be willing to shed some light on what she did during her term at the White House and how she got selected in the first place. Elena then started teaching again and was eventually hired as the Dean of Harvard Law School. It has been reported in several papers in the area of Harvard that she was one of the most liked professors at Harvard. However, if you read those articles you realize that she was not liked for being a scholar but was liked because she set up coffee machines in the law school so the students did not have to pay for coffee. Additionally she is famous at Harvard for providing free tampons in the bathroom for the female law students. Maybe she will expect this same service at the Supreme Court building if selected as a Justice. I could hardly believe the article when I read it but that is what the students claim. I was searching to see what this alleged Harvard scholar had done in a scholarly way when I ran across another article that was equally hilarious. This article said she was the person who came up with the idea to set up an ice-skating rink behind Harvard by turning on the water hose and letting it ice over. When I read this, I could not help but laugh thinking about the liability for the University. Nevertheless, the students were so thrilled about it that they wrote about it and how wonderful Dean Kagan happened to be. Upon careful search and review, I could only find a couple of cases that Ms. Kagan was involved in that went to the Supreme Court while she was at Harvard. I started wondering does merely teaching at Harvard and being the Dean make you one of the finest legal minds in America? I wondered when looking at Ms. Kagan's record or should I say a lack of a legal scholar record. However, I bet she becomes very popular if she is appointed to the Supreme Court for toting coffee to the other Justice's as they age on writing opinions, who knows. I just wonder, "Did she tote President Obama's coffee when she worked with him at the University of Chicago and is that why he likes her?" After careful review, one has to wonder if her possible kinship to the Kagan's is what got her this fancy job at Harvard or was it her brilliance at placing tampons in every bathroom at Harvard. After all her father had already passed away years before she got this job. So other than the Neocon Kagan's who helped her get this job? Was it Donald Kagan who pulled the strings? How did Kagan move up the ladder with so little to show for it? That is the million dollar question and what will he want when she is on the bench?

The two cases that Ms. Kagan signed her name on but claimed she really didn't write that went to the Supreme Court are the "Don't Ask and Don't Tell" case about gays in the military where she takes a far left position and the "Harvard Military Recruiter" case where she takes another far left position. In the military recruiter case, the United States Supreme Court voted nine to zero against the position that she took. Yet, now she claims that all she did was sign her name as though that will make it all better. My question is, "Why would President Obama want a woman on the Supreme Court who would sign her name on a case and then deny being very involved in it when it is before our top court?" One has to wonder if these possible Arch Neocon relatives of hers had her on these cases just to see what was happening.

The other interesting thing about Ms. Kagan is that she is alleged to be openly gay. It has been reported on numerous Harvard Campus blogs and in many newspapers across the country that she may be our first openly gay Supreme Court Judge. In fact, it is possible that if this is true, that she may become our first married gay judge if she rules on the bench on the rights to gay marriages. This is a political hot potato for President Obama in an election year. One has to wonder why he would want to open this issue up in an election year where the races across the country are going to be very close according to the polling already out on the internet. It is clear that the Republicans will beat President Obama with a gay stick on this matter or will face their religious right base at election time if they fail to stand up against her.

Further, President Obama should consider that Ms. Kagan is Jewish and there are already two Jewish Justices on the Supreme Court. For the first time in the history of the court, fifty-one percent of the population will not have a Justice of their religious preference on the bench if she is selected. It will be the first time in United States Supreme Court history that a Protestant is not sitting on the Supreme Court bench. The question the citizens should be asking is, "Why would President Obama want to appoint another Jewish person to the bench when that faith only represents 1.7% of the population?" Does he not think that the Protestants who represent 51% of the population have a right to have a representative on the United States Supreme Court?

A couple of final points that President Obama should consider is, "Do we honestly need another Judge from New York?" Look how many Judges sit on the bench that are from New York, he just appointed one approximately a year ago. Does he not think that Supreme Court Justices can come from anywhere other than New York, Chicago and California? Also, what about all the Ivy League Judges sitting on the bench, six that have graduated from Harvard and two from Yale. Do we really need another Harvard trained Judge? On the other hand, is it that President Obama is blinded by trying to help his friends get important jobs and not seeing the forest for the trees? Should our President want to hire his buddies or do what is best for his country? It is my hope that when President Obama looks at Elena Kagan he realizes that she is his good friend but that she is not the best mind in the United States for the Supreme Court. President Obama would do well to think about how President Ford came to pick Justice Stevens. President Ford said when asked about picking Justice Stevens, "I picked the best legal mind I knew in the country". Clearly, President Obama should be looking for the best legal mind in our country during these troubled days. President Obama should tell his buddies, I love you but I am looking for the best legal mind in the country because I owe it to the citizens in the United States of America.

This is an update to my article last week on the Supreme Court. I am happy to announce that after writing this article today I have learned that President Obama has added five more candidates some of which are not Ivy League Elitist from New York or graduates from Harvard. It appears Ms. Kagan may not be the pick of the litter for the Supreme Court.

Jill Simpson is a country lawyer from Rainsville Alabama who is currently pursuing a PhD in Religion and Philosophy at the California Institute of Integral Studies. One of her areas of study is the United States Supreme Court and Religion.

 am a graduate of the University of Alabama and University of Alabama Law School. I practice law in Rainsville Alabama. I believe in Justice and equality for all. I believe that government should be for the people and should be free of corruption.




Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Newsweek blackout on Goldman/Kagan connection: http://www.newsweek.com/id/238075
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 Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Quote
Further, President Obama should consider that Ms. Kagan is Jewish and there are already two Jewish Justices on the Supreme Court. For the first time in the history of the court, fifty-one percent of the population will not have a Justice of their religious preference on the bench if she is selected. It will be the first time in United States Supreme Court history that a Protestant is not sitting on the Supreme Court bench. The question the citizens should be asking is, "Why would President Obama want to appoint another Jewish person to the bench when that faith only represents 1.7% of the population?" Does he not think that the Protestants who represent 51% of the population have a right to have a representative on the United States Supreme Court?

It is a fairly decent article, but the author seems to be exposing a bit of a religious slant on a topic that has no room for religion.

Actually, religion has nothing to do with being a judge, as justice is suppose to be blind, in theory. By saying or complaining that your religion is not represented in the court, is saying that you want to bias the court in your favor before your case ever gets to the court clerk. That is rigging due process of law, and unconstitutional.

Then there is the reality. The secular world doesn't care. To them, it's all about who can have the most influence when and where they want it. As they say in their world, "Image is everything".

And just in case somebody missed it earlier...

There is NO WAY that this Kagan person should even be considered for even a district court judge, let alone SCOTUS. She has never even served as a judge, ever, in any court. Not even in traffic court.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)