Hillary Clinton's Civility...she wants to over rule God.

 

↓This one has a different ending. ↓

 

Bret Kavanaugh, I'm posting this for you. What they really want is to control the future of society.

Opening Statement by Norman E. Hooben

Never in the history of the United States of America has there been such character assassination during the selection process of a nominee to the Supreme Court...NEVER! And this is exactly what is going on by the Democrat Party who has rabidly attacked, accused, and found guilty of nothing, their slaughter of Bret Kavanaugh; most likely the highest qualified Constitutionalist judge in the last hundred years...or longer!  Why is that?
We can probably sum up all of the reasons by quoting the first modern day progressive of the twentieth century, President Woodrow Wilson.

"We must control the courts and they shall control the future society. In effect, they must rewrite the Constitution." ~ President Woodrow Wilson

The Democrats under President Obama aided immensely, Wilson's wishes for that ultimate control of society by appointing with no fanfare at all, Elena Kagan; most likely the worst Constitutionalist this side of Wilson's presidency.  Her senate selection made all those in favor complicit in the anti-American/globalist movement.  We should also note that this movement has its beginning in the Communist/Socialist dreams of Karl Marx ←yeah, you can study that part on your own time to come to the same conclusion. Oh, in case you think my opinion of Elena Kagan was just thought up in thin air...put this in your sail boat fuel (sorry if you don't know that one, its the wind)...read the following:

Source: The New American

Tuesday, 01 June 2010

Harvard Law Dean Kagan Replaced Constitution Studies With International Law
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D

 

On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the Supreme Court's 2009–2010 term. A significant entry in the catalog of Ms. Kagan’s remarkable achievements is her deanship of the über-prestigious Harvard Law School. In 2003, she was named, as the school’s first female dean, to succeed Robert C. Clark, who had held that post for over a decade. While manning the helm at Harvard Law, she attracted attention of alumni and observers for steering the ship away from the tried and true “case-law method” of studying the law.

A central plank in Kagan’s revolutionary platform is the abandonment of the requirement that students at Harvard Law School study constitutional law. The course’s place in the curriculum was replaced by classes examining the laws of other nations and international law.

In fact, according to the requirements for receiving a J.D. as listed on the Harvard Law School website, the study of our republic’s founding document is nowhere to be found.

In 2006, after the changes were proposed by Kagan and approved by the faculty committee evaluating the suggestions, the school published a news release to explain the changes and Kagan offered the following justification for the de-emphasis of constitutional law studies:

From the beginning of law school, students should learn to locate what they are learning about public and private law in the United States within the context of a larger universe — global networks of economic regulation and private ordering, public systems created through multilateral relations among states, and different and widely varying legal cultures and systems. Accordingly, the Law School will develop three foundation courses, each of which represents a door into the global sphere that students will use as context for U.S. law.

The press release identifies the three new required courses Kagan introduced to take precedence over constitutional law. The first covers comparative international law and was designed to “introduce students to the sources, institutions and procedures emerging over time through the bilateral and multilateral arrangements among states as well as the participation of nongovernmental actors.”

The second class, called “Legislation and Regulation” is designed to familiarize students with he world of legislation, regulation, and administration that creates and defines so much of our legal order.” In other words, the regulations and codes promulgated by the bureaucracy are more critical to the definition of our legal order than is the Constitution.

The final course, on comparative law, “will introduce students to one or more legal systems outside our own, to the borrowing and transmission of legal ideas across borders and to a variety of approaches to substantive and procedural law that are rooted in distinct cultures and traditions,” the release said. Again, Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s nominee to sit on the Supreme Court, believes a survey of “legal systems outside our own” is more valuable than a study of the Constitution.

Apart from the statements included in the press release, Elena Kagan explained her justification for the curriculum changes she instituted at Harvard in a 2008 article published in The Green Bag, a legal journal dedicated to publishing brief, readable articles about the law. In the piece, Kagan explained that the effect of global crises and the call for global governance made it necessary to minimize the role of constitutional studies in favor of classes more apropos to the equipping of lawyers with “tools for all the roles they will be called on to play."

One of the very important roles that these future leaders will play, according to the article, is the quest to find workable solutions to problems “ranging from climate change to terrorism to economic insecurity."

Neither the press release nor The Green Bag article indicates why Kagan believed that these classes could not be added to the curriculum without relegating the study of the Constitution to elective status.

While the benefits of the courses of study created by Elena Kagan are debatable, it is difficult to find a single sound argument for downgrading the study of constitutional law to elective status. That is not to say that a class improving students’ international perspective is unnecessary. As a matter of fact, many of our own Founding Fathers made the study of international law one of the key aspects of their own education in anticipation of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The unanswered question is: Why could Elena Kagan not find room for these new classes without pushing the study of constitutional law to the margins of the Harvard course catalog? Why was it an either/or situation, and why did she come down on the side of international and regulatory law and against the Constitution?

It would be similar to the English Department at Harvard determining that Shakespeare would no longer be required reading for students interested in a PhD in Elizabethan English literature.

Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, reckons that the changes made by Kagan at Harvard offer a glimmer of insight into Kagan’s perception of the Constitution and its place in American jurisprudence. Even a scintilla of evidence is valuable given the dearth of reliable indications of Kagan’s constitutional mien.

“One of the things [that] we don’t know about Kagan, which she has not been terribly forthcoming on in previous questioning (during her nomination) for solicitor general, is how she views international law,” Alt said. “Should domestic law be influenced or modified by international law? We don’t know what she thinks.”

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president power to nominate and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, judges of the Supreme Court. It is the responsibility of the Senate to enquire into Elena Kagan’s constitutional bent and her propensity for interpreting our foundational document in a manner consistent with established principles of federalism, separation of powers, and limited government.

As Mr. Alt, understandably concerned with the message sent by Kagan’s near obliteration of constitutional law from the basic curriculum of Harvard Law School, observed, “This is an important question because there are others in the Obama administration, like Harold Koh, for instance, who have suggested with regard to the First Amendment, for instance, that perhaps the First Amendment should be modified in some way in accordance with international norms, in order to facilitate compliance with international agreements.” Harold Koh is the Legal Adviser to the Department of State and is controversial for his advocacy of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States.

The First Amendment that Koh would "modify" to conform to international standards of liberty reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This article was modified to reflect the fact that constitutional studies were not wholly abandoned, but were purposefully de-emphasized and reduced to little more than elective status in the curriculum of the Harvard Law School while Elena Kagan was dean.

...the greatest political evil under our Constitution!

by Norman E. Hooben with Dustin Koellhoffer's Democratic Party Playbook

I have often stated that I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican although it's hard to remember the last time I voted for a Democrat.  Brought up in a democratic stronghold where I thought the word republican connotes something that I should veer away from less I be attacked by monsters from outer space... and that's even before I ever heard the word 'politics' !  Obviously I was pretty young the first time I heard anything about political parties and what role they play in our country.  But as voting age rolled around I took an interest in these people who call themselves politicians.  I listened to them speak and paid very close attention to what they were preaching.  Then when it came time to vote my first vote was for a guy that told the truth.  For you see it was two Democrats running against one another for some state office.  I actually caught one of them lying so that's where I made my decision...it's been so long ago I don't even remember who won but I was establishing my political stance early, vote for the guy who tells the truth!  As the years rolled by and I found myself in different locations (career military) I stopped voting absentee from my hometown but rather registered to vote wherever I was stationed (except overseas).  At some point in time (I think I was in Texas) I realized that most of the politicians I was voting for were Republicans...again, honesty was the deciding factor.  And yet knowing what I was doing I never once voted straight ticket...until the last three voting cycles for by then the Democrats were almost completely taken over by the Communist left (Remember, they said they would do it... "15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States." from the list of communist goals: Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35).
Keeping in mind my opening line "...neither a Democrat or a Republican" my most memorable quote from our Founding Fathers that keeps me away from so-called party politics comes from our 2nd president, President John Adams:

  "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution"

Now what started me on this rant is the following article by someone that I don't know a lot about but he seems to be honest...and if this is true then we should all be paying attention to President Adams end-quote, "This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." and by that I mean the Democrat Party...the greatest political evil under our Constitution!  Have a nice Day, Norm (see below)
 

By Dustin Koellhoffer

 

I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh.  The only way to describe leftist liberal Democrats in one word is SCUM!  They have undermined America’s economy, worked to make Americans their debt slaves, managed the nation’s decline, turned young Americans against America, aided America’s enemies, enabled an invasion by foreigners, weakened her military, sabotaged her economy, and duped the ignorant with their twisted ideology.  Declaring Kavanaugh to be guilty of sex crimes unless he can prove himself innocent shows exactly how backwards their thinking is when it comes to justice.  Democrats, who put men in little girl’s bathrooms, now say that any allegation of sexual abuse must be believed – but only against Republicans.  Theirs is the ideology of debasing righteousness.

Democrat leftists believe that Republicans are guilty until proven innocent.  That it is not possible to prove one’s innocence means that they can convict and execute Republicans just by making any false accusation.  Republican conservatives believe you are innocent until proven guilty, meaning you actually have to produce evidence to prove your accusation is not a lie because it is an absolute truth that people lie.  As Democrats make a circus of sewage out of a SCOTUS hearing, they ignore their own defectives who commit crimes and betray America.
Barack Hussein Obama met in the White House with and gave secret American intelligence to the Muslim Brotherhood.  He funded them to form ISIS and armed them.  He then allowed their Jihad to blossom and attempt to re-form the Caliphate.  Obama then changed the American Rules of Engagement to protect terrorists.  He committed American planes to bombing the desert, wasting American ordinance as he stopped military production and reduced America’s military capacity.  He then sent Navy SEALS to their deaths at that hands of an enemy who knew they were coming because Obama, America’s Moslem socialist Commander-in-Chief, informed ISIS of SEAL operations in advance so they could be prepared to destroy them.
There is a million times more evidence of the truth of this than there has ever been of Brett Kavanaugh being a sexual predator.  Leftists in media are falling all over each other in their efforts to declare they believe Kavanaugh’s accusers and his guilt.  Were they there?  Did they witness these events?  Or do they just take the word of a psychotic pathological liar because they, too, are psychotic pathological liars?
Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer is the truth.  Is Kavanaugh a sexual predator that six FBI background checks failed to discover?  Or is Kavanaugh being railroaded by a pack of lies, his character being assassinated in an attempt to sabotage Trump who Democrats abhor, and that Democrats are lying in unison because they hate America?  Democrats have been caught in thousands of outright lies about Trump for the past four years.  The obvious answer is the one that has evidence to prove it.
Kavanaugh’s innocence demands that Republicans get their heads of their posteriors and confirm him to the Supreme Court.  Democrats can spend the next forty years pulling more “proof” out of their rectums, but people who don’t have their brains lodged in the same orifice will see them for what they are.  Democrats say all their different witnesses wouldn’t lie?  Why not?  All liberal Democrats have been caught lying in unison!  Who do they think they’re fooling?  Only an idiot lemming would believe them at this point.
It should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass and a functioning brain that the left are liars.  Their two-faced ideology condemns the righteous without proof and exonerates their own guilt despite proof.  Their ideology is identical to that of Islamic Sharia law that declares in any dispute between a Moslem man and an infidel that the infidel is wrong and guilty of a crime for accusing a Moslem, even if there is proof the Moslem man robbed, raped, or murdered an infidel.  Only in Islam is honor killing and this kind of injustice acclaimed.
This is Satanism straight up!  Who wants to be on the side of evil?  Evil people.  Self-righteousness, prejudice, and bigotry are the three legs of the tripod of unrighteous judgment.  Convicting innocent people without facts is how evil breeds evil.  Deception, pandering, and demagoguery are the methods by which the left dupes the ignorant.  Only by learning the facts can one find the truth.  And only by developing a moral compass can one find one’s way past the evil that deludes them.
The Kavanaugh hearing, like the Russia investigation, is all pre-meditated character assassination by Democrats.  Smearing and slandering good people is the heart and soul of leftist hate.  There is no good in leftism.  There is no right in the left.  There is nothing positive that they bring to life.  There is only negative.  Learning and understanding that fundamental truth and living with the axiom that the left is never right is the only way to assure that you are not one of their dupes.
Geraldo Rivera said there are “two truths” in the Kavanaugh-Ford testimony.  Just because she believes her own lies doesn’t make them true.  There is no such thing as two opposites being true.  Seeing things from the wrong perspective does not make it true or right.  There are only those who delude themselves into believing their own lies.  Contrary to Rivera’s misconception, Kavanaugh’s confirmation will not help the Democrats who have revealed their evil nature to the world.  Only those who lack a moral compass will remain Democrat lemmings who scorn the righteous.

About The Author:

Dustin Koellhoffer

I am a retired paramedic/firefighter who served 25 years in the city of Dallas. I have degrees in Journalism, History, Military Science, and Military History that I spent most of the last forty years studying. I have also spent much of these forty years in scholarship studying Christianity, Islam, America, and world history. My writing is from the perspective of a conservative Christian libertarian and I use my free time in retirement to observe what is happening in politics. Much of what is in the news is propaganda that I have been trained and know how to recognize. My purpose is to expose the dysfunctional thinking of the Left and counter it with good sense conservative principles.

_________________________________

 

 ________________________
_________
__

 

FLAGSHIP

Never Trust A Rhodes Scholar...or anyone married to one!

In 1891, gold and diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes formed a secret society, the "Society of the Elect", to "absorb the wealth of the world" and "to take the government of the whole world", according to Rhodes. According to Prof. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, in The Anglo-American Establishment, Rhodes' conspiratorial secret society lasted almost 60 years. By that time, enough members of the society and Rhodes Scholars had penetrated the areas of politics, economics, journalism and education, so that the society was simply replaced by a network of power elite, who would openly pursue world government.

According to Quigley:

"The [Rhodes] scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out Rhodes' purpose."

And in case anyone doubts the credibility of Prof. Quigley regarding this matter, The Washington Post article (March 23, 1975) about him and his information obtained from the power elite's "secret records" was titled "The Professor Who Knew Too Much."

Cecil Rhodes' secret society was comprised of a small "Circle of Initiates" and a larger semi-secret "Association of Helpers" which formed Round Table Groups. Members of these groups along with members of the Fabian (Socialist) Society as well as "The Inquiry" (a group formed by President Woodrow Wilson's chief advisor, Col. Edward M. House) formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Great Britain, and its American branch, the CFR. Both Prof. Quigley in Tragedy and Hope and CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in A Thousand Days have referred to the CFR as a "front" for the power elite. And in Men and Powers, former West Germany chancellor Helmut Schmidt referred to the CFR as "the foreign policy elite," which prepared people for "top-level missions" in government and "other centers of international policy" and "had very silent but effective ways of seeing to its own succession."

Members of Rhodes' secret society networked with Fabian Socialists, who established the London School of Economics in 1895. One early Fabian, H.G. Wells, in New Worlds for Old explained what he called "a plot," whereby heads of state would come and go, but bureaucrats trained at the London School of Economics, for example, would remain in government making rules and regulations furthering the goals of the Fabian Socialists.

Wells broke with the Fabians, not in terms of goals, but only in believing they should be open about them, as he explained the coming synthesis of western capitalism and eastern communism into a world socialist government. In this regard, he authored The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928) and The New World Order (1939), in which he said sovereign states (nations) would end and "countless people... will hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it."

The power elite understood that it would be difficult to get the people of the world to accept a world government all at once, and so a gradualistic approach was suggested. Association of Helpers member and Canadian Rhodes scholar P.E. Corbett in Post-War Worlds (1942) wrote:

 "A world association binding together and coordinating regional groupings of states may evolve toward one universal federal government... World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development."