AMERICA'S A-CHANGING

The supreme Court (as provided in the U.S. Constitution) seems to me to be a kind of bell weather sounding a warning about the near future. Others have likened it to a bell cow, leading the other cows back to the safety of the evening containment. Surely, its human constitution will augur something meaningful about America’s “Ship of State.”

Some observers believe that the fact that at least one-third of the nine members of the supreme Court are Jews is the most significant anomaly. Jews are thought by some to adhere to “their law” rather than the organic law of the land in which they dwell, Jewish protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

I have read on good authority that Justice Ginsburg reads the Talmud daily. No doubt, she finds it edifying. I am certain that she doesn’t spend the same amount of time reading about the U.S. Constitution, exegeses written over the last two hundred years on it, or the beliefs of those who wrote the organic law of America. Certainly, the beliefs of the people who ratified it are not likely to interest Justice Ginsburg. On the other hand, insights derived from Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Hillel, the Sage of Vilna and Rambam might well influence her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

In the past Justice Breyer has sought the wisdom of the leadership of Zimbabwe and other countries to find “new precedence” for constitutional interpretations. People who commonly form international organizations with global ambitions must feel compelled to tap into the font of wisdom typically found in third world countries, and, surely, this has been the case with Justice Breyer. Too, nations are just too constricting to people who have outgrown them.

Justice Kagan is from Chicago. Her fellow Chicagoan, President Barack Obama, passed over the likes of Eric Holder to choose her. In the “City of Fixes” political animals know how to schmooze.

The present supreme Court may be viewed from other perspectives. Consider the fact that a majority of the Court are minorities. Besides the three justices listed above, there are Justices Thomas and Sotomayor. What might this mean?

Years ago in the 1950s, the cry went up about the “tyranny of the majority.” At that time approximately 88-90% of the American population was classified as “white.” One can infer that this was a highly accurate census count, and that the “white” category was filled with Anglo-Saxons and other clearly white types of people. No one dared at that point in America’s history to describe an Egyptian as “white,” as may commonly happen today.

Hence, the term “tyranny of the majority” was aimed directly at them. The view that our Republic, reflecting democratic properties, would normally pass laws that were approved by that majority was given little note. Some group, or groups, with ulterior motives convinced “educated Americans” over time that such commonplace expectations as majority rule in point of fact was based on “tyranny.” Newspapers pointed the finger of guilt at the “majority,” and they were all-to-ready to wallow in guilt [“It hurts so good!”]. This set the stage for the “tyranny of the minorities.” Soon, white society seemed to be on the road to decline.

A minority supreme Court naturally follows.

Still another way to look at the present constitution of the supreme Court is from the point of view of religion. One can observe the three Jews. Whether an observant Jew or a “secular” Jew, Jews still consider themselves to be “Jews.” This status is held on to tenaciously. One should respect that desire. However, deranged ideas embraced by and emanating from this category need not be respected.

I have read somewhere that five or six of the justices were Roman Catholic. Usually, this means that they plan to make a “perfect act of contrition” just before dying, allowing them to schlep into Purgatory. If this obtains with the justices falling into this category, then an ordinary citizen might feel some cause for wariness.

Lastly, one of the two minority “ruling circles” (to use that oddly apropos terminology of former Soviet Union rulers) in America are the Freemasons. I don’t know if any members of the present Court are Masons, but in the past they have numbered upward of six.

The really stark change in the modern supreme Court is that there are no Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Not counting Freemasons, the Anglo-Saxon, Scott, Welsh, German, Scandinavian and kindred people have been marginalized. No politician or pundit wastes much ink trying to “win their vote.” Since they have ceased to be an effective majority, the “tool of tyranny” is wielded by dominant minorities.

By effectively using immigration policy the “ruling circles” have assured a continuing downward trend in the power status of the once dominant white population. This protects the status quo of the two ruling minorities, while giving them additional sets of human blocks to manipulate.

Both dominant minorities are globalist and constantly market its benefits and inevitability. Hence, it is hardly unexpected that nations such as the United States fare worse and suffer decline.