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.