Equally as loathsome when actor and malcontent Sean Penn criticizes America while praising the Arab Spring, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disparaging the US Constitution rivals treason.

Ginsburg’s ACLU convictions shadow her in old age. Conjoined in mindset with Barack Obama, both believe the Constitution is an outdated allegory, no longer sufficient as a guiding vehicle to the norms of contemporary society.

Like a vulture awaiting a carcass to further decompose before gorging its remains, Ginsburg shared her ill-timed and progressive views on social equality in the appropriately moldering venue of Egypt last week.

A proponent of foreign charters and treaties to better liberate the world, Ginsburg on Christian Arabic Alhayat television, said, “I would not look at the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in 2012, instead suggesting a more modern version, namely South Africa’s, in laying more fundamental human rights and an independent judiciary.

In Cairo on the one-year anniversary of the Friday of Rage, marking the uprising leading to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Ginsburg called it “a very inspiring time, that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. Americans are hoping that this transition will work.”

In the streets below her hotel overlooking Tahrir Square, Islamists and liberal secular-leaning protesters were seen divided on how to achieve that genuine democracy.

Also among the activists on the Square, where in 2011, three world newswomen on assignment were sexually assaulted and molested, including CBS News’ Lara Logan who was raped, were members of the rancorous Muslim Brotherhood, unsullied from a 50-seat parliamentary election victory, now in the driver’s seat of the country’s conscience.

While Ginsburg espoused “listening and learning from others,” referencing amended protocols from the European Convention on Human Rights, CBC Egypt was simultaneously broadcasting the carnage and subsequent rioting with police in the aftermath of a Port Said soccer match where 74 people were trampled to death.

Ginsburg’s sojourn was tainted as 19 Americans; some from US funded pro-democracy organizations were accused of inferring in the country’s internal politics, and are now being held hostage by Egypt’s military-appointed government.

Choosing not to contradict the objective of her visit, the normally outspoken Ginsburg had no comment on the wave of crime and internal turmoil in a region where the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood calls the shots following Obama’s call one year ago for Mubarak to step down.

Since Ginsburg won’t use the US Constitution as an archetype model for Egypt, she can’t preach to the new choir inserted there
either; ones with as little regard for American ideals as Ginsburg herself.

Update 1/7/11 6:00pm. Two San Diego area Congressmen, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Carlsbad) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) sent letters to US AG Holder & Defense Secretary Robert Gates in defense of the memorial.

A commanding and dramatic site. A testament to our War Veterans who have given their lives to Advance Freedom and protect our nation. Now in danger from leftist and liberal organizations like the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and our own court system.

This time an outrage from the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, specifically Justice Margaret McKeown who penned the 50 page decision this week, stating the 43 foot tall Mount Soledad Cross which sits on federal land in a park just outside the city of San Diego violates the “Establishment Clause” of the Constitution, noted below:

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.

In reaching the decision the 9th Circuit overturned a previous ruling in 2008 by Justice Larry Burns who ruled in a previous lawsuit by Jewish veterans the cross is part of a memorial built for and in memorial of all veterans, not just those of any ethnicity or religion. The Cross now belongs to the Federal Government, specifically the Defense Department, the entity which now must intervene to save the cross from possible demolition. Not only is there a cross, but also 2,700 plaques dedicated to war veterans both living and deceased in 6 concentric rings.

The crux of McKeown’s decision states the Cross

“primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause. This result does not mean that the memorial could not be modified to pass constitutional muster, nor does it mean that no cross can be part of this veterans’ memorial.”

Our national heritage seems to be in the crosshairs of liberal organizations and judges who are chipping away bit by bit at the ideals and religion this country was founded upon.

This Cross controversy has been in the court system for over 10 years, SCOTUS Justice Kennedy intervened in 2006 ruling for a stay after Congressional legislation and the voters of San Diego made their feelings known positively after the ACLU filed suit on behalf of an atheist who was apparently “offended” by the cross. If the “offendee” was “offended” this diarist sees no need for that “offendee” to attempt to limit access to the thousands of visitors who see the cross as a Beacon of Light and comfort for our veterans, those who made the ultimate sacrifice and their families. After all, it just sits there. There’s no coercion of any kind.

Gina Coburn, ironically a spokesperson in the San Diego attorney’s office and once a plaintiff claims the cross will have to be removed unless the 9th Circuit reverses their decision or SCOTUS intervenes.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Atty. Kelly Shackelford of Liberty Institute whose organization is representing the American Legion and has filed a brief asking the court to protect the monument. Liberty Institute also represents over 4 million veterans in their fight to preserve the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial which also had a cross, pictured below, which was stolen back in May after SCOTUS “saved” it. This is akin to desecrating people’s graves.

Liberty Institute will be appealing to the Obama Administration and the US Justice Dept to intervene to save the Soledad cross. Their press release is here.

It seems we have an attempt at “religious cleansing” here, my folks. I wonder what the reaction would be had this been a mosque. Attorney Shackelford states:

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion almost completely disregards the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Salazar v. Buono, in which the Court said that the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial should stay,” said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute. “This ruling is a slap in the face to our nation’s veterans, and we hope that the Justice Department will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to set the matter straight.” [snip]This is part of a national trend to remove crosses on federal land, regardless of whether the cross is part of something as sacred as a veterans memorial.”

We’ll have to see how the Justice Dept. and Obama handle this. After all, Obama was “called to task” by members of Congress in this letter for “misquoting history” in his speech in Indonesia last December. In the speech he called our national motto E pluribus unum when in reality it is In God We Trust. A deliberate misquote, an error or no teleprompter in site?

The letter is signed by 42 Congressmen.

As our Veterans Memorial Crosses seem to be toppling like dominoes, what is next to be targeted? The site below?

Crossposted at Conservative Outlooks

Crossposted at Procinct.net

The origins of the American Civil Liberties Union are deeply entangled with Communism. Not the idealistic “liberals in a hurry” stuff of fellow-travelling fairy tale, but the bloody-minded sedition and revolutionary terror of hard historical reality.

[ACLU founder Roger] Baldwin’s radicalism caught the eye of the FBI, which quoted him in a 1924 report as having said: “The right to advocate a violent revolution, assassination, and proletarian Red guard, are all clearly within scope of free speech …”

The ACLU founder traveled to Stalin’s Russia in 1927 and wrote a book titled “Liberty Under The Soviets” the following year, which defended the Lenin’s and Stalin’s repression of dissent because they “are weapons in the transition to socialism.”

To Baldwin’s credit, the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, “the modern age in arms,” shook him out of his ideological stupor and he repudiated Communism: more than that he successfully pushed the ACLU to expel open Communists, a brave move that alienated many of his colleagues, provoking several of them to resign from the organization.

Read More →

The origins of the American Civil Liberties Union are deeply entangled with Communism. Not the idealistic “liberals in a hurry” stuff of fellow-travelling fairy tale, but the bloody-minded sedition and revolutionary terror of hard historical reality.

[ACLU founder Roger] Baldwin’s radicalism caught the eye of the FBI, which quoted him in a 1924 report as having said: “The right to advocate a violent revolution, assassination, and proletarian Red guard, are all clearly within scope of free speech …”

The ACLU founder traveled to Stalin’s Russia in 1927 and wrote a book titled “Liberty Under The Soviets” the following year, which defended the Lenin’s and Stalin’s repression of dissent because they “are weapons in the transition to socialism.”

To Baldwin’s credit, the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, “the modern age in arms,” shook him out of his ideological stupor and he repudiated Communism: more than that he successfully pushed the ACLU to expel open Communists, a brave move that alienated many of his colleagues, provoking several of them to resign from the organization.

Read More →