Veterans Today Opposes U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Elena Kagan Supreme Court

Weak on Defense and Bill of Rights, Not During War Time

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is untrustworthy, weak on defense and supports the Bill of Rights only with conditions. With our military imbedded in foreign conflicts on false premises, her wartime appointment must be rejected.

This former University of Chicago law professor poses a danger to the right of free speech and the right to bear arms—the first two tenets of our Bill or Rights. Only 50 years old, Ms. Kagan could leave in her judicial wake a badly battered Constitution and a nation unable to defend itself, particularly when forced to confront an enemy within.

As dean of Harvard law school, she banned on-campus military recruiters. Yet in her Senate hearing she claimed to “revere” the military. Is this an example of what one U.S. Senator diplomatically described as Ms. Kagan’s inability to be “rigorously accurate.”

The U.S. was induced to wage war relying on what British nuclear arms inspector David Kelly described as “sexed-up” intelligence. Despite Kelly’s death, the common source of that phony intelligence has since come sharply into focus.

Senior military commanders have confirmed a professed ally as the source. To date, domestic politics have precluded the candor required for a mid-course correction.

U.S. military leaders know how they were deceived—and by whom. What now for the fate of the deceivers? If you are someone sympathetic to that ally, what would you do?

What should be the fate of those who provided aid and comfort or adhered to this enemy? Those carefully chosen phrases were inserted in the Constitution to describe for future generations of Americans the perilous nature of treason as a capital crime.

The Chicago Outfit

If, as the facts confirm, mainstream media helped induce the American public to rely on false intelligence, how would this same misinformed public discover its source? What means could our military leaders use to inform us that they—and we—were deceived?

What news outlets can our military trust? Fox News? CNN? The New York Times? For a nation dependent on informed consent, where can we as veterans turn for the real facts?

Our prospects are poised to worsen. Joe Lieberman, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, proposes an Internet “kill switch” activated by declaring a cyber emergency. If enacted, that law will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.

As those who “fixed” the intelligence become transparent and their adherents apparent, how will Americans respond? If the Internet is the most robust means to communicate, will domestic politics persuade our commander-in-chief to hit the “kill switch?”

What opinion would the Supreme Court offer on this limitation of free speech? If this deception traces to a common source, would the Court agree to a limit on the right to bear arms in order to protect those who “adhere” to this enemy within?

Enter Elena Kagan. Though many of her colleagues viewed her publishing as far too scant, she was granted tenure as a Harvard law professor. What little she published focused on hate speech and the role of the government’s motive when limiting free speech.

If, as the facts confirm, our military was taken to war by an enemy within, large numbers of Americans are certain to be upset—particularly veterans. Vets also possess the skills to deploy deadly force should they become well informed.

They may even hate those who did this to a nation they took an oath to defend from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Many vets take that oath far more seriously than those who set their course by the shifting winds of domestic politics.

If free speech were limited (say with the Internet “kill switch”), would Justice Kagan uphold that limitation? Would the government’s motive affect her decision?

Would she seek to preclude an armed public from hating those who deceived us at such a high cost in blood and treasure?

What if the facts confirm that those who defrauded us to wage war also defrauded us of our retirement savings and plunged the economy into a recession? What then?

If the government’s motive is to keep Americans from bearing arms against those giving aid and comfort to an enemy within, is that reason enough to hit the “kill switch.”

Why do 60 Million Americans Oppose Elena Kagan?

Combine 27 million veterans and their families and the opposition to Kagan may well exceed 60 million informed Americans. Of course that assumes vets are informed of the perils of placing her on the nation’s highest court. How could they know?

Will Rupert Murdoch’s “fair and balanced” Fox News inform them? Will they get “news you can trust” from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer who worked 17 years for The Jerusalem Post and published a sympathetic account of Israeli-American super spy Jonathan Pollard?

Do Americans know that Ms. Kagen was a member of the Research Advisory Council of Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute? Do veterans know that she is the first Supreme Court nomine since 1972 with no judicial experience? Why was she the nominee? And, importantly, why now?

The Christian Science Monitor posed a question that mainstream media will not ask: “Why is an Israeli judge Elena Kagan’s ‘judicial hero?’” Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak showed how activist judges can shape the law to create what they consider the desired outcome—in a country with no constitution.

Kagan was nominated by a political product of the Chicago Outfit. The family lineage of Penny Pritzker, Barack Obama’s top fundraiser, dates back to organized crime of the 1900s. Both her grandfather and her great-grandfather were lawyers for the mob. Kagan served as a law clerk for Chicago Court of Appeals Judge Abner Mikva. Mikva also tried to recruit Obama who he describes as “the first Jewish president.”

If approved, Ms. Kagan will be the nation’s eighth Jewish Supreme Court Justice and the third on the current bench. In a nation that is less than two percent Jewish, our highest court will be one-third Jewish.

Those appointments began with Woodrow Wilson’s selection in 1916 of Louis Brandeis, president of the Zionist Organization of America. In the 1960s, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Senator William Fulbright sought to force that organization to register as what it was and remains: a foreign agent.

Instead, Zionists morphed their lobby into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the hardcore center of a potent lobby that has long dominated U.S. foreign policy.

The sexed-up intelligence that induced us to war in Iraq traces to a common Zionist source. Though Ms. Kagan is clearly a charming Jewish-American lawyer, her Israel-first perspective is inappropriate for our Supreme Court. At this perilous moment in this nation’s history, U.S. national security interests require that she be rejected.


The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on July 2, 2010, With Reads Filed under Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

16 Responses to "Veterans Today Opposes U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan"

  1. B.A. Gilmore  July 5, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    These arguments are fishy. Everyone who’s read a newspaper knows she was nominated because she wasn’t a judge. They also know Harvard’s policy on not letting organizations who discriminate come onto the campus. She followed Harvard’s policy. She didn’t set it up. And as for her grandfather and great-grandfather being lawyers for the mob, who cares? We have enough lawyers for the slimy politicians and corporations to worry about. I’m not about to jump back fifty years and go, “Shame on you.” We all have somebody in our family who wasn’t on the up and up. And we all know there was nothing we could do to change them. Free will, baby.

  2. angel  July 4, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Clearly you may be an internet agent pretending to be on one side while attempting to form dissent on this private site which shows truth in a world of lies. We know the difference between the two, so it is not difficult to discern.

    You have a lot of “Where?” questions. I hope you don’t want answers, you won’t get any, so why ask. Answer your own questions (google it =owned by a couple of jews).

    Next, this is not a crazed mob as you seem to claim this author, and its readers to be, but simply humans having intellectually stimulating interaction. If you, as an individual, feel you need to do something about something, then do it. Please refrain from asking others what they will do, did do, or may do, because an answer will not be put forward. Typical jew behavior.

    Yes, not all jews are bad, but they all know what the zionists are doing, they know Isreal did 9/11 and other evil things. So why would you question this article on jew kagan, with no judicial experience, to be put on the highest court, by a president surrounded by jews, paid for by Aipac, a Goldman Sacs hand shaker, and many more jewish coincidences, as if the accusation is solely based on her jewishness.

    You must be one of the Cyber Warriors, probably a highschool student, working for your Rabbi, to stop the future massacre of jews, which is fake. Jewish paranoia is created from birth, based on a myth about hitler, who was paid by the jew Rothschild to scare the jews to Isreal, and resulted in Hitler divesting from the interest bearing banker, leading to Hitlers demise. The real question is, who started the war, the jews or hitler? The answer: The jews declared war against germany. The day will come.

    We all die one day.

    • Equalizer  July 4, 2010 at 1:18 pm

      The jews also declared war on Russia.

  3. C.V. Compton Shaw  July 3, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    The MOST important qualification for any politician is LOYALTY. Many of our most important politicians have NOT demonstrated their loyalty to the USA and the American people. Too many of those who have high elected and/or appointed political office in the American government are NOT loyal to the USA. Many have DUAL citizenships. The political establishment that favors massive illegal and unjust legal immigration, a pogrom through discriminatory laws against caucasian males, ruinous trade, industrial, and economic policies, and that has launched aggressive, criminal, and illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT loyal to the American people and the US Constitution. Kagan is definitively a part of this DISLOYAL political establishment. As a result, I, like Veterans Today, oppose her nomination as a US Supreme Court Justice.

  4. Pray for the Truthtellers  July 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Justices on the Supreme Court must put aside any and all considerations concerning religion, ethnicity, color and Personal opinions or political philosophies. They are sworn by sacred oath to only judge each case which comes before the Court solely on the basis of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights says (and those documents and their supporting documents are in plain English. To do otherwise is “judicial activism” and cannot be tolerated on the high court(or any other for that matter).

    Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is already hanging by a thread because of people who have abused their power and we must not allow Ms Kagan to be confirmed to the court.

    It takes extra-ordinary people to have great power and not abuse it and Ms Kagan clearly is not an extra-ordinary person.

    • Equalizer  July 4, 2010 at 1:11 pm

      “They are sworn by sacred oath…”.

      GOOGLE: KOL NIDRE…read about sacred oaths.

  5. kathyT  July 3, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Hang with the radicals- and you get the radicals.

  6. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez  July 3, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Very interesting information on the new nominee. Thanks for this article!

    ‘9/11 & Free Energy’:

  7. Sean T Lewis  July 3, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Is this really an editorial of Veterans Today? Or is it, as it appears to be, the ravings of a paranoid op-ed contributor (more excusable than an official position of a periodical)?

    If the former, I have got to get off this site, and have my name brushed out of the (few) articles I’ve published here. No fact-checking, and declarations of editorial policy replaced with tabloid-like “questioning”? Come on! If you have the goods on Kagan, present them, and back them up with verifiable fact! Don’t rely on your “questioning” what might happen without any answers or solid basis.

    Please, tell me that this is just a random opinion piece, and not representing the actual editorial policy of this web publication.


    Sean T Lewis
    Op-ed contributor
    Veterans Today

    • Firiel Peredhel  July 3, 2010 at 4:39 pm

      Sean, I am not in favor of Kagan, but I had the same reaction you did. I want more than accusations. I want the facts. Thanks for bringing this up.

    • wolf  July 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm


      The focus on Kagan’s lack of qualifications distracts from the fact that she was a Goldman Sachs adviser. After her appointment as Solicitor General, Kagan took a six-figure salary cut yet her net worth somehow grew 74 percent during her year as Solicitor General. This has been explained variously as refinancing a $1.4 million home to “lucking out on the rebound of the stock market.” This year, Kagan listed assets of $1,762,519 and no liabilities, with $740,000 of that figure in cash.


      The crucial qualification for Supreme Court Justice is objectivity.

      The Judicial branch is supposed to rule on cases based upon the existing laws. In order to do that, the ability or skill which distinguishes a judge from prosecutor or litigator is ability to rise above all personal political bias and follow the letter of the law – even if the judge doesn’t like the law.

      Kagan is on the record as supporting gay activism. As a Supreme Court justice, will she be unbiased when cases involving gays being ‘out’ in the military arise? Does she even believe that a judge should be unbiased?


      Kagan’s graduate thesis at Oxford made the rounds last week. Ordinarily reviewing something a Supreme Court nominee wrote in college would be absurd – but her lack of track record leaves little choice.

      An article in National Review Magazine last week published key passages of Kagan’s thesis pointing out that she believes the judiciary itself exists to “achieve certain social ends” and it’s valid for judges to “mold and steer the law to promote certain ethical values”.

      She wrote: “As men and as participants in American life, judges will have opinions, prejudices, values. Perhaps most important, judges will have goals. And because this is so, judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid. The law, after all, is a human instrument–an instrument designed to meet men’s needs…. Concern for ethical values thus has an important role to play in the judicial process. For in the last analysis, the law is a very human enterprise with very human goals.”

      That’s crystal clear. “Judges with goals” means political agendas. That means the judge doesn’t apply the laws on the books, but seeks to make the case serve to change laws of the land. That’s the essence of judiciary activism.

      It is interesting. The woman has no experience as a judge whatsoever, which would have been absurd once upon a time when judges were sworn to be impeccably impartial and required decades of experience.

      Her Supreme Court appointment is designed to make it an unelected policy making body.

      Her references to achieving “certain social ends” is code for Communist revolution. The Rothschilds, who ultimately fund Kagan (and Obama), always mask their dictatorship in sweet smelling platitudes.

      Elena Kagan’s lack of a track record is being spun as a ‘plus’ by the Illuminati-controlled media. The buzz word with talking whores right now is ‘outsider’.


      No. The Supreme Court is hardly the place for on-the-job-training. It’s a lifetime unelected position and Kagan stands to be ruling on the US laws till the 2040’s. Supreme Court appointments aren’t a place for ‘Affirmative Action’ either.

      Let’s be honest – everybody can tell Kagan’s appointment is a done deal. Her appointment is deliberate – it lowers the bar for qualifications for the highest bench in the land. Track record and proven experience are out the window. Appointments based on gender and sexual preference are ‘in’. Is Congress going to approve anybody but Jewish lesbians?

      The Illuminati are doing a wonderful job of destroying America.

      Sotomayor Not First Hispanic Judge- You Guessed it -she’s Jewish Too! ”
      -by Richard Evans
      (for henry makow dot com)

  8. stewart  July 3, 2010 at 8:57 am

    ‘As dean of Harvard law school, she banned on-campus military recruiters. Yet…’

    The Law School’s anti-discrimination policy, adopted in 1979, provides that any employer that uses the services of OCS to recruit at the school must sign a statement indicating that that it does not discriminate on various bases, including sexual orientation. As a result of this policy, the military was barred for many years from using the services of OCS. The military retained full access to our students (and vice versa) through the good offices of the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, which essentially took the place of OCS in enabling interviews to occur.

  9. Texas Grunt  July 3, 2010 at 1:02 am

    “If approved, Ms. Kagan will be the nation’s eighth Jewish Supreme Court Justice and the third on the current bench. In a nation that is less than two percent Jewish, our highest court will be one-third Jewish.”

    Most of your arguments are really good, Jeff. This one ranks with the most upsetting. I’m Jesuit Catholic raised and trained, yet, 2/3 of our Supreme Court will be Catholic and 1/3 Jewish. Who is representing the majority called Protestant Christians in this country? The argument that the “law” is above religion doesn’t hold water when we realize we are ALL motivated by how we were trained as children.

    Where are the Protestants and their point of view on the Supreme Court?

    Where, where, where are over 50% of America’s views represented? This is not right, Chicago politics notwithstanding.


    • Michael Leon  July 3, 2010 at 7:47 am

      I agree with much of your analysis, but when I heard Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jeff Sessions go Old South on her, I immediately supported her.

      These two little pricks played to every rightwing, bigoted pieces of shit whom I must thank for bringing me to American politics.

      Let’s face it, without the specific support of bigots the GOP would be history.

      Rightwing Zionism, as you have pointed out, is much more complicated, but I cannot abide these Southern shits.

    • Tom Dillman  July 3, 2010 at 9:12 am

      Sessions and Graham may be — as you so eloquently say — two little pricks, BUT they mean nothing in the big picture of the total abandomment of the largest majority of Americans. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face when you have to face the consequences of letting emotion run roughshod over the pure and simple logic of being sorely unrepresented in the most powerful Court in the land.

      Mke, we need to get you down here to live in the real, cosmopolitan South for a bit. You’d be amazed how a winter without snow and a cosmpolitan atmosphere would change your attitude.


    • jcfromnj  July 4, 2010 at 10:08 am

      1/3 Jewish reads 1/3 Zionist.50% in 10 years ? If you split the Catholic majority on any issue, the zionist prevail. They work as a block. We all know what we are dealing with, I haven’t said anything new that everyone does’t alredy know. “By Way of Deception”

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network