Like the proverbial hydra of Greek mythology, the deadly multi-tentacles of what I’ve termed the “Progressive Revolution” have so reached, affected and deconstructed every aspect of truth, law, politics, economics, culture and society that today it is nearly impossible to deduce what our Founding Fathers actually envisioned the laws of the country to be. Over the past 100 years, Congress, the president and the courts have so expanded federal power as to make states rights a dead letter.
If I Were the Devil. If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness [Paganism]. I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree. So I should set about, however necessary, to take over the United States [U.N. Globalism].
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) – a renowned Greek philosopher from Athens who taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle and Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Socrates used a method of teaching by asking leading questions. The Greeks called this form dialectic – starting from a thesis or question, then discussing ideas and moving back and forth between points of view to determine how well ideas stand up to critical review with the ultimate principle of the Socratic dialectic being Veritas – Truth.
This article is a detailed and substantive analysis of a declassified Nazi report on German family and inheritance law compiled shortly after World War II by the American Office of Strategic Services Research & Analysis. Dated July 16, 1945, the document is titled, “Nazi Changes in the Field of Family and Inheritance Law” (R & A No. 3092).3 The report is divided into two sections: I. The Law prior to 1933; II. The Law since 1933. This division is significant for Adolph Hitler, who became the Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, even though his Nazi Party did not possess a majority of the votes. …
Throughout this article I will follow and augment the ideas, research and writings of scholars like Youngson, Bergman, Shirer, Stein, Bloom and Wiker, among others. I will particularly focus on their shared thesis that Hitler and the Nazis purposely and systematically revolutionized German law to facilitate application of Social Darwinist policies like eugenics, natural selection and survival of the fittest, and systematically applied these diabolical ideas to every conceivable aspect of German society. These facts will become particularly evident for application and purposes of this paper in my analysis of German and Nazi laws on marriage, family and inheritance law.
Did you know that 93 years ago the Supreme Court decreed that advertising to your fellow Americans about their constitutional rights to be a federal crime? Astoundingly, this was the unanimous 9-0 decision of the case Schenck v. United States (1919). This case, in an openly fascist manner, violated defendant Schenck’s First Amendment rights to distribute flyers alerting his fellow citizens of their First, 10th and 13th Amendment rights not to comply with the draft and fight in World War I.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the legendary German theologian, was one of the central figures in two separate and complex plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler – Operation 7 and Operation Valkyrie. This hero paid the ultimate price in fighting against Nazism, fascism and the so-called “German Christian,” leading to his martyrdom at Flossenbürg concentration camp exactly two weeks before it was liberated by the U.S. Army 90th and 97th Infantry Divisions and three weeks before Hitler committed suicide inside his underground secret bunker in Berlin.
If you were to ask a typical liberal, progressive, or even a Marxist/socialist jurist who was the most important Supreme Court justice of the 20th century, invariably the name cited most often would be Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Holmes served on the Supreme Court from 1902-32, and many of his majority (and dissenting) opinions are considered some of the most legendary and sublime utterances in the history of the high court.
There are three things I hold as relative certainties in this uncertain, vexatious world of moral relativism: 1) God is in control of everything and every person in the universe and will one day settle all accounts, 2) the sun will rise tomorrow morning and 3) Justice Clarence Thomas will uphold his sacred oath he made 21 years ago “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
As the Supreme Court ended a tumultuous week of oral arguments on Obamacare, all of the legal and political pundits are scurrying around like ants, reading and rereading every word of the justices, dissecting every syllable, every verbal inflection; trying in vain to read the tea leaves, to deduce how the court, or more pointedly how the court’s swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, will decide the fate of the Obamacare mandate tax/penalty.
In 1857, the pseudo-constitutionalism of the Dred Scott v. Sandford majority led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney essentially decreed that all people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves when brought into the United States and held as slaves under the same racist logic that barnyard animals (chattel) were not protected by the Constitution, could never become U.S. citizens.
“The corruption, crime, and incompetence of the D.C. government has been an embarrassment to our nation’s capital for decades. It is long past time that Congress restored the honor and integrity of George Washington to the beautiful city which bears his name.” ~ Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), speaking on the BOWSER Act “It is […]
Fifth Circuit’s Ruling against “Nasdaq Board Diversity Rule” Safeguards Meritocracy Over Mediocrity
“The evidence presented by Nasdaq in its rule proposal, contrary to its claims, does not show that board diversity provides better returns for shareholders.” ~Excerpt from a Manhattan Institute led amicus curiae brief in the case of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment vs. SEC. “We will terminate every diversity, equity, and inclusion program across the […]
The Keep Nine Amendment: A Permanent Solution to Threats of Court-Packing
“I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court. If anything would make the court appear more partisan, it would be that. So, I am not at all in favor of that solution. Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a […]
Recent Comments