Bilderbergers Meet Again

Just a short one for tired readers.

Ray sent me the context of Sotomayor's remarks about Latina. I will drop it in here next time. Not having read the context, yet, I am interested in the notion that what she said could be out of context. If it is, it will be a classic example of how one (me) should not assume excerpts mean what they say. I should never rely on journalists, anyway, but you can't look everything up.

The key is what her view of a judge is. I think most people don't understand they are not responsible to find fact, they are responsible to conduct matters according to due process. That is what is meant by not making law. It is one thing for Congress to make a law, which can be reviewed under Constitutional provisions, but another for the Court to do it, such as the Roe v. Wade case, which is a departure from the role of the Court.

The majority made up new law because the majority wanted the result, not because it was supportable by precedent. The Vermont Supreme Court made up the social contract (there are non lawyers on the court) by deciding it flows from the Dred Scot decision. This makes zero sense. To understand the system, now realize that present judges who are conservative, with a small c, will give deference to Roe, etc., as it is precedent. The weird Vermont decision was not reviewable by anyone, even the U.S. Supreme Court, so it made up law. To its detriment, the legislature just shuffled along.

As Greg says, in a means analysis, the legislature should have ignored the instruction to create a law that met the Court's decision (I am not making this up) and should have rejected the usurping of power. The legislature is free to make laws, but it has to defend its own turf.

Chief Judge Roberts testified at his hearings that as a Court member, he must apply law and precedent (which can be changed if a proper case is brought) and Roe is law regardless of any personal opinion. This is what I call system's analysis, the proper way to protect the Constitution.

Judicial activists say - Oh the Constitution is so old and made up by dead white men, so we can change things to make them modern, for example, that, for some magical reason, abortion is legal for three months. Why? Activists wanted the outcome, bringing in their own views and desires, and do back flips to sound like they are traditional jurists. This is ends analysis is, to my mind, the end of the grand experiment. Ends analysis is anarchy and tyranny. The government will do what it can get away with, then it won't care, as it will have control.

So, I will see what Sotomayor thinks. The quote being used these days suggests she wants to make law based on her sex and personal experience. That is anathema to the conservative, so that may be why it was lifted and promulgated. Her personal experience is irrelevant to a traditional jurist's mind. In fact, she would be highly regarded when her personal opinions are unknown or put aside; they have no place in judicial work. I will get to this soon.

I recall one case from law school where this point was made. In a criminal case the defendant said he was at a certain location to make a night deposit. The Judge knew there was no bank deposit box at that bank, so in his rulings he had the testimony, essentially, destroyed. The appeal court said, no - you do not bring in you knowledge; it is not your job. The lawyers dig out the facts and offer evicence to the jury. Sure, mistakes can be made, but do you want judges telling the jury what to think?

(Ray, looks like a good kayak place at 2123 Central Ave, Albany called Paddle 'n Pole.)
------

Here is an interesting report on the current Bilderberg meeting.

I like the notion that people assume that this talk about the Bilderbergers, the CFR, and so on is part of some nut conspiracy and don't even try to put 1 and 1 together. Now, if you say evil Republicans are meeting to make money, then you have a Congressional hearing. There must be a way to make money on self-imposed blinders. Gold, I guess, but they can take that away. A puzzlement.

Below, note the talk was of a short crash, rather than a long one. If the "recession" is short it must be deep to meet the goals of creating chaos......new government. If you apply this filter to what has happened in the past few years, especially this year, it is obvious what is going on. This clarity lends credibility to the filter, though doesn't prove it.

An excerpt for fun:

..Shortly after the meetings began, Bilderberg tracker Jim Tucker reported that his inside sources revealed that the group has on its agenda, “the plan for a global department of health, a global treasury and a shortened depression rather than a longer economic downturn.”

Tucker reported that Swedish Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, “Made a speech advocating turning the World Health Organization into a world department of health, advocating turning the IMF into a world department of treasury, both of course under the auspices of the United Nations.” Further, Tucker reported that, “Treasury Secretary Geithner and Carl Bildt touted a shorter recession not a 10-year recession ... partly because a 10 year recession would damage Bilderberg industrialists themselves, as much as they want to have a global department of labor and a global department of treasury, they still like making money and such a long recession would cost them big bucks industrially because nobody is buying their toys.....the tilt is towards keeping it short.”[2]

After the meetings finished, Daniel Estulin reported that, “One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns according to Estulin is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos in order to implement their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.”[3]

On May 21, the Macedonian International News Agency reported that, “A new Kremlin report on the shadowy Bilderberg Group, who this past week held their annual meeting in Greece, states that the West’s financial, political and corporate elite emerged from their conclave after coming to an agreement that in order to continue their drive towards a New World Order dominated by the Western Powers, the US Dollar has to be ‘totally’ destroyed.” Further, the same Kremlin report apparently stated that, “most of the West’s wealthiest elite convened at an unprecedented secret meeting in New York called for and led by” David Rockefeller, “to plot the demise of the US Dollar.”[4]

The Secret Meeting of Billionaires

The meeting being referred to was a secret meeting where, “A dozen of the richest people in the world met for an unprecedented private gathering at the invitation of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to talk about giving away money,” held at Rockefeller University, and included notable philanthropists such as Gates, Buffett, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Eli Broad, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller Sr. and Ted Turner.... [This part of any conspiracy needs a mild suspension of belief, I should think, but not a dismissal.)

Bilderberg founding member David Rockefeller, Honourary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Honourary Chairman and Founder of the Trilateral Commission, Chairman of the Council of the Americas and the Americas Society, former Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan.