STTPML Commentary

We at STTPML, as veterans of the U.S. military and/or government service, have taken, some more than once, the oath to uphold, serve, protect and defend The Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (which implies having read and understood what one is upholding, protecting and defending–which well over 90% of those who take the oath, or even citizens have never done according to Pew Poll data). We all consider that oath to be one binding for life. From our experiences, we have found the real enemies of the U.S. Constitution are far more often of the domestic variety than foreign and the domestic variety is far more dangerous because of the masks they wear and slogans they shout that look and sound like the masses they are trying to control and use.

It is not that we have any illusions about how, by whom (which classes), with what intentions and to build what kind of system the U.S. Constitution was written. The original signers were mostly slave holders, members of various all-male secret (and thus not transparent or accountable) and white-male-only cults like the Masons and Sons of Liberty, who intended to build, and did build surviving to this very day, a faux Republican system of plutarchy, white-male privilege, patriarchy, slavery, “extirpation”  or “assimilation” and “civilization” of the Indigenous “savages”, denial of franchise to women and with slaves counted each as “worth” 3/5 of a white person and only for census purposes to increase the representation in Congress from the lower-population-densities of the slave-holding states. Even among the age-eligible white males, only about 15% were deemed eligible to vote as being “propertied” (50 acres of land or taxable income), in addition to being “White”, Protestant, and male was part of the overall eligibility to vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States.

As John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice put it: “Only those who own the property of the U.S. should be allowed to vote and rule the U.S.” Among the elites who signed the Declaration of Independence and formed and structured the U.S. Constitution, the general feeling was anti-democratic and a deep distrust of “the masses” and not only because of their material interests in contradiction with those of the plutocrats, but also in terms of their supposed inability for complex cognition. There was an expression that “Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb “voting” on what’s for dinner.”

In this simile, the lamb is the plutocrats surrounded by hungry wolves (the masses) undermining the elite rulers who were “preordained” by “God’s Grace” to “leadership, pure and delightsome white skin, proper breeding, higher intellect, wealth, power, fame, dynastic rule and even exemption from the very laws they passed binding on everyone else (still applies today with the Supremes and Congress as well as law enforcement, military and intelligence).

What they actually built, and this remains today at accelerated levels, scopes and depths, is a system in which a few wolves (plutocrats disguised as sheep and shepherds) surrounded by armies of jackals (minions and functionaries) find creative ways to have the sheep (the masses) accept their “God-preordained inferiority and subservience to “The Elect”, and  vote (if they must but even voting by the masses to be discouraged and obstructed) for which of the wolves will be the open face of rule; and which of themselves, fellow sheep, are to be sacrificed and readied for dinner.

They set up systems of checks-and-balances more designed to slow down any significant change that to make sure that any change is well-considered and from a variety of perspectives of those impacted. The U.S. Supreme Court rules finally on the “constitutionality” (in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme and final authority on all law) of all laws enacted by Congress and all decisions of the Executive, per Marberry v Madison decision; but there was no other entity or branch of government, or venue to go to, to challenge the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that only they can pass or veto  on the constitutionality of any laws. or policies.

So  the U.S. Supreme Court simply asserted without challenge, in their venue, with no other venues or Court to go to, that they, and only they, could possibly have the expertise, standing and Constitutional independence, as a co-equal branch of Government, to examine and determine the Constitutionality of any laws or practices of government or the private sector. And the Supremes historically, not only have arrogated to themselves the role of final arbiter on Constitutionality of all laws and policies, but they have summarily, over the course of the history of the Court, arrogated to make themselves exempt from the very same laws, policies, practices they have ruled to be Constitutional and to be applied to everyone else.

In Bush v Gore, 5 to 4 selecting the next president of the U.S., and setting in motion all the forces associated with Bush that brought all the carnage that has flowed from that decision, three of the five “Justices” (Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor) were in direct and willful violation of 28 USC 455 an extremely important statute along with the fundamental principles of due process embodied in it.

Scalia had on son at  the time working for the very law firm litigating the case and stood to gain, and did gain significantly, with the selection of Bush. Thomas’ wife was heading the team vetting the transitional Bush team plus selections for cabinet positions in the new Bush regime and stood to gain, and did gain significantly, from the selection of Bush. Finally, O’ Connor, before the election, and after while votes were being counted but the case had not yet gone to the Supremes, said, in front of several witnesses at cocktail parties, that she did not want Gore to win because she wanted to retire and did not want him to be the one picking her successor.

28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;

(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;

(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.

(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests.

–

–

Imagine a “Mount Rushmore” in Germany with the faces of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Goering for posterity because “some” Germans still consider them heroes and “patriots and do not know real history”?

Teddy Roosevelt:

“No greater calamity could now befall the United States than to have the Pacific slope fill up with a Mongolian population.” ; “In strict confidence … I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.”; “… The president of the United States had skirted the Constitution and negotiated a side deal with the Japanese at the same time he was posing as an honest broker between Japan and Russia at the Portsmouth peace talks.” (Bradley Imperial Cruise p. 294 …”)

Thomas Jefferson:

Dear Sir: …But this letter being unofficial, and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend the parts dealt out to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where you are obliged to act without instruction…To promote this disposition to exchange lands which they have to spare and we want for necessaries, which have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands. At our trading houses too we mean to sell so low as merely to repay cost and charges so as neither to lessen or enlarge our capital. This is what private traders cannot do, for they must gain; they will consequently retire from the competition, and we shall thus get clear of this pest without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians. In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States or remove beyond the Missisipi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves. But in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be fool-hardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe and driving them across the Missisipi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation…

Whatever can now be obtained, must be obtained quickly. The occupation of New Orleans, hourly expected, by the French, is already felt like a light breeze by the Indians. You know the sentiments they entertain of that nation. Under the hope of their protection, they will immediately stiffen against cessions of land to us. We had better therefore do at once what can now be done. I must repeat that this letter is to be considered as private and friendly, and not to controul any particular instructions which you may receive through an official channel. You will also perceive how sacredly it must be kept within your own breast, and especially how improper to be understood by the Indians. [For] their interests and their tranquility it is best they should see only the present state of their history. I pray you to accept assurances of my esteem and consideration.

TH: JEFFERSON

” I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.”

Abraham Lincoln:

Abraham Lincoln, 1858 “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes.”;

George Washington: They work more effectively against us than the enermy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America — The Jews.   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/09/1275483/-George-Washington-is-not-my-Great-White-Father#

Mount Rushmore

Mount Rushmore is controversial among Native Americans because the United States seized the area from the Lakota tribe after the Great Sioux War of 1876. TheTreaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 had previously granted the Black Hills to the Lakota in perpetuity. Members of the American Indian Movement led an occupation of the monument in 1971, naming it “Mount Crazy Horse”. Among the participants were young activists, grandparents, children and Lakota holy man John Fire Lame Deer, who planted a prayer staff atop the mountain. Lame Deer said the staff formed a symbolic shroud over the presidents’ faces “which shall remain dirty until the treaties concerning the Black Hills are fulfilled.”^[41] In 2004, the first Native American superintendent of the park was appointed. Gerard Baker has stated that he will open up more “avenues of interpretation”, and that the four presidents are “only one avenue and only one focus.”^[42]

The Crazy Horse Memorial is being constructed elsewhere in the Black Hills to commemorate the famous Native American leader and as a response to Mount Rushmore. It is intended to be larger than Mount Rushmore and has the support of Lakota chiefs; the Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation has rejected offers offederal funds. However, this memorial is likewise the subject of controversy, even within the Native American community.^[43]