THE WAR IN THE COURTS KENNEDY AND THE "N" WORD
By: Alan Stang
The Democrats have allowed scores of Bush nominees to take their seats in Federal district courts. They have adamantly refused to okay the four or five you have heard about because they have been nominated to superior courts from which nominations to the Supreme Court would be made.
The Supreme Court is the prize. It is the preeminent weapon the world government conspirators have been using to subvert our civilization. Indeed, Supreme Court politicos now boast in public that they use foreign law to decide our own. The district courts use "judicial activism." The Supreme Court uses the "living Constitution." And these doctrines raise the question of what a court is supposed to do. In our system, the courts were created to decide how a particular law applies to a particular case. But judicial activism throws this sensible idea into the garbage. With judicial activism, the courts change our system and civilization and use the law to make their illegal changes look legal.
What about the "living Constitution?" There’s no such thing. The "living Constitution" is a defective condom. It purports to protect, but you will wake up pregnant and the judges won’t respect you in the morning. It holds that the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is, which means in effect that there are rulings but no rules.
The trouble is that if the judges make it up as they go along and merely use the Constitution as an alibi, there is no Constitution. There is lawmaking in the courts. Notice that the Constitution takes a distant back seat these days to stare decisis, "to stand by things decided," in which courts rely for authority on what other courts have said rather than on the Constitution. But if the courts have the power to say what the law is, why do we need a Congress?
According to its advocates, we need a "living Constitution" because the Constitution is more than two centuries old. It’s "archaic" and needs "modernization." But the Founding Fathers knew the document would need judicious change; that is why they wrote the amendment process into it. The "living Constitution" proponents are amending it illegally.
The lawyers tell us that the best testimony is an "admission against interest," and now comes shocking proof from the mouths of the perpetrators themselves that the judges are trying to subvert our civilization. At a recent hearing, federal judges kicked out Roy Moore as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. I for one had thought that the reason was the Ten Commandments monument he had installed in its rotunda.
But I was wrong. At the hearing, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor was in effect the prosecutor. Here is the telling interchange between Pryor and Chief Justice Moore. (This is from the official transcript, according to observer Chuck Baldwin.)
Pryor: Mr. Chief Justice? And your understanding is that the Federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn't that right?
Pryor: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today —
Moore: That's right.
Pryor: — no matter what any other official says?
Moore: Absolutely. (Chief Justice Moore then elaborated.)
Pryor: The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that [acknowledge God] without regard to what any other official says; isn't that right?
Are you as astounded as I am? Here we learn that the Ten Commandments monument, which by then had long since been removed, had little if anything to do with the hearing. The real issue was Chief Justice Moore’s insistence that he would continue to "acknowledge God" in his rulings. Had His Honor backed down, had he agreed not to acknowledge God in his rulings, then presumably the federal judges would have restored him to his job.
I am not going to waste precious space proving that our precious system is founded on God’s teaching. Some issues I argue, but when something is as obvious as that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." I can only assume that those who deny it are artfully playing dumb, i.e., lying. As the bailiff in the U.S. Supreme Court puts it: "God save this honorable Court."
In passing, we should certainly mention that Bill Pryor, the "prosecutor" in the Moore case, is one of the would-be judges Bush has nominated and the Democrats are holding up. They are doing so presumably because he is said to oppose abortion, but one wonders how staunch that opposition would be on the bench, now that this skunk has exposed himself as a world government whore.
This brings us to Ted Kennedy, longtime U.S. Senator (D-Alcohol). This is the womanizing drunk who drove off that bridge and let that girl die in a puny attempt to save his career. Maybe you opposed his brothers Jack and Bobby as much as I did, but even their most determined enemies agree – I certainly did – that they had beaucoup class, or presence, whatever you want to call it. They would have been contenders on their own.
On the contrary, consider what Teddy would be today were his name Joe Shmo from Kokomo rather than Edward Moore Kennedy, and you will realize instantly that this fat slob would today be a men’s room attendant in a skid row flophouse. Of course, everyone knows that, so why do I bring it up?
By now you know that Teddy has denounced Bush’s appeals court nominees as "Neanderthals," named for the prehistoric remains the scientists dug up in the Neanderthal Valley near Düsseldorf in Germany. At first they said he was overwhelmingly brutish and apelike, that his knuckles dragged on the ground, etc.
Now some of them say he could have been a myth, that maybe he never existed. Could be – I am not a paleontologist – but one look at the fat slob himself as he crawls out from under a table where he has just dragged another waitress and you know for sure Neanderthal exists.
One of the "Neanderthals" he was talking about is Justice Janice Rogers Brown. In a speech in 2000, Janice the Neanderthal said this:
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery in the name of shared resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most vast network of concentration camps ever built for the defense of liberty.
The totalitarian mind can reappear in some new and unexpected and seemingly innocuous and indeed virtuous form. It will probably put itself forward under the cover of a generous doctrine, humanitarian, inspired by a concern for giving the disadvantaged their fair share, against corruption, and pollution, and "exclusion."
You might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.
Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.
Lionel Tiger, in a provocative new book called The Decline of Males, posits a brilliant and disturbing new paradigm. He notes we used to think of a family as a man, a woman, and a child. Now, a remarkable new family pattern has emerged which he labels "bureaugamy." A new trinity: a woman, a child, and a bureaucrat.
This apparently is the thinking that has driven Teddy and other world government conspirators berserk. Why has Bush nominated this magnificent woman? She disagrees with everything he stands for and has done. Could the reason be that he intends to let her twist slowly in the wind like Manuel Estrada, another nominee who refused to take it any more and went home? Bush then could take undeserved credit for trying.
It gets worse. Janice Rogers Brown is black and is beautiful. She would be beautiful if she were white; she has a beautiful mind. She comes from a family of Southern sharecroppers and worked her way through school. But Teddy used the "N" word to describe her. Remember what happened to Trent Lott for daring to praise a centenarian. The fat slob should likewise be publicly humiliated and forced to resign. The fact that he won’t be proves again that the Democrats and the black leaders are frauds.
The Republicans recently conducted a phony filibuster allegedly on behalf of Bush’s federal court nominees. Of course it failed. It was not designed to succeed. Here is what the Republicans should do.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Republicans control Congress and should do so. The Court would be forbidden to consider certain settled issues. The Constitution gives Congress the power to abolish all other federal courts. The Republicans should do so and start again. Remember that Clinton’s first official act was to fire every U.S. Attorney. Congress will adjourn soon. If Bush is not just playing games, he should install Janice Rogers Brown and the others – except Pryor the skunk – via recess appointments. Clinton did exactly that to appoint Bill Lann Lee to the Justice Department, when even Congress couldn’t stand the smell. Congress could do all this if Republicans had cojones. But they don’t. Republicans are pansies who will bend over forward to be polite, for fear that the fat slob will call them Neanderthals. They don’t deserve Janice Rogers Brown. If Bush doesn’t install her, would the lady consider replacing the white trash Neanderthal feminoid who soon will stand for reelection as U.S. Senator from California?
Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Alan Stang can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
We invite you to visit his website at: www.stangbooks.com