Liberal Supreme Court Justices Support Material Support To Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Obama-installed Sonia Sotomayor gazed into the Constitution like gypsies gazing into the murky depths of a crystal ball, and somehow discovered the penumbras and emanations justifying allowing material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 21, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars ”material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

”Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority’s conclusion ”that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

The law allows medicine and religious materials to go to groups on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The Obama administration said the ”material support” law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terror groups.

One of the funny things is that the “humanitarian aid group” that is behind this case is ITSELF tied to terrorism.  But American liberals are determined to serve as the useful idiots for Islamic jihadists.

Better that every single American die a horrible death of radiation poisoning from the next major terror attack than that a single terrorist be deprived of a single “right” as championed by morally idiotic liberal justices on the US Supreme Court.

Even Barack Obama and his insanely leftist administration realizes the sheer craziness of these three morally idiotic whackjob justices.  Which begs the question why Obama would have appointed one of said morally idiotic whackkob justices.

Obama is saying he opposes Sonia Sotomayor’s stupid ruling.  But the dumbass disgrace supported it and hundreds of idiotic rulings just like it when he appointed this racist and sexist “wise Latina” to the bench in the first place.  It’s like shooting yourself in the foot, and then opposing the gunshot wound in your foot.

Leftist ideas cannot possibly work in the real world.  Governing by leftist ideology is akin to playing Russian Roulette with all six cylinders loaded.

Obama is about to appoint yet another moral idiot whackjob to the Supreme Court, who will curse this country with her despicable lunacy for decades to come.

You can’t really blame Obama, or his Supreme Court appointees, though.  They are merely working to enact the vision of “God damn America!” that Obama’s reverend for 23 years planted in the mind of the Manchurian President.

Here’s why we have such contemptible justices who are trying to destroy America one asinine and self-destructive decision at a time:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Obama campaigned on a platform of complete moral idiocy.  At some remote level, he is beginning to realize that his ideology is utterly useless and inherently self-destructive as a basis from which to actually govern.  But moral idiocy is all he has to offer.  So he’s paralyzed, stuck somewhere between being utterly useless and being inherently self-destructive.

All he’s got is the perennial campaign; the ability to actually govern or lead has been purged from the White House until this president is himself purged from the office.

Obama supports the lunatic environmental movement, and then flounders in the Gulf as every solution to contain the damage of the oil leak is opposed by the very environmentalists he appeals to.  Obama supports the pro-illegal immigration movement even as he falsely promises to somehow reduce illegal immigration.   Obama supports the lunatic liberal judicial approach, and then flounders in the war on terror (renamed the “overseas contingency operation” to satiate the left) as the very liberal judicial approach he so favors gets in the way of actually winning or even just not losing.

The sad thing is that you can count on Obama to keep appointing fools – and then being forced to resist the very rulings that his fools dictate.

That’s just what fools do.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Liberal Supreme Court Justices Support Material Support To Foreign Terrorist Organizations”

  1. norris hall Says:

    The danger is not having a strict definition for the word “Terrorists”.
    Nowadays governments are applying that label to “anyone who disagrees with them”.
    It’s been used by the Chinese to define the Tibetan protesters, By the Thai government to define the “Red Shirt” opposition, by the Israelis to define “Hamas”. It is becoming fashionable for governments to label anyone that opposes them of being “terrorists”.
    Recently some “Tea Party” candidates have proposed using the 2nd amendment to forcibly take over the government when the constitution is being threatened. Terrorism?
    Just what is terrorism.
    We’ve so overused the word that it almost ceases to have real meaning anymore.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Two things.

    First of all, I challenge you to show me a halfway legitimate “Tea Party” candidate who has proposed using the 2nd Amendment to forcibly take over the government. I want to see the actual words of a candidate advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

    I’m presuming you mean this quote by Sharon Angle:

    You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

    I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

    Can I take your criticism to mean that you, the liberals, and the Democrat Party are officially and intrinsically opposed to the ideas of Thomas Jefferson, a founding father? Are you people in fact that far gone from the founding fathers and the Constitution that they wrote???

    After that, you numbnut, allow me to point out that she advocates voting Harry Reid out of office, not a violent flaming mass killing in the streets in bloody overthrow of the government.

    Sharon Angle is entirely correct in her presentation of the 2nd Amendment. It was installed as a reaction against tyranny. In England, the country America was rebelling from, it was illegal for a citizen to keep and bear arms. The king could be as tyrannical as he wanted, and the people could do nothing to defend themselves. The founding fathers said that it was far better for a government to fear its people than for a people to fear their government.

    You, apparently being a fascist, want a government that has complete dictatorial control over an entirely helpless people in the face of the next tyrant to come along.

    Which is to say, I vastly prefer Sharon Angle’s America – which is the founding fathers’ America – to your tyrannous statist regime.

    Second, your argument amounts to this: 1) Many governments have used the word terrorists to demonize their opposition. 2) Therefore, there is no such thing as “terrorists” or perhaps 2a) Anyone who uses the word “terrorist” does so illegitimately.

    Clearly, an entirely bogus argument.

    It’s kind of like pornography. You might appeal to the fact that it is impossible to precisely define the word. But you are an abject, slack-jawed, drooling idiot if you don’t think that pornography is a real thing.

    Get your brain out of the mud and start thinking clearly.

    P.S. And just what kind of a rare species of dumbass are you NOT to recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization????

    From the Charter of Hamas, which you aren’t smart enough to recognize as “terrorist”:

    “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad….I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill.”

    “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish, and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”

    “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it”

  3. norris hall Says:

    When I read Sharon Angle’s statement, I have no doubt that she means that people should take up arms if they feel their government is a threat.
    In fact Lars Larson of Portland, Oregon, the very right wing radio talk show host who interviewed her thought she was indeed talking about an armed uprising.
    Larson’s take: “If it continues to do the things it’s doing, I think she’s leaving open that possibility.”
    Larson said. “And I think the founders believed that the public should be able to do that when the government becomes out of control. It just matters what you define as going too far.”

    So the question is: Is Angel advocating a terrorist position.
    Left wingers would say “Yes, Instead of the ballot box, she is advocating the violent overthrow of the government”
    Conservatives would say “No. She’s just agreeing with Jefferson that sometimes the government can be “so bad” and that it needs to be overthrown”

    So you have a case where one side defines her as a terrorist…the other as a patriot.

    Hence the definition of terrorism is important to define and agree on before you can make rulings on what constitutes “aid and support for terrorists”

    In Thailand the current government (installed after a military coup threw out the duly elected prime minister) sent the army in to quash the street rebellion by thousands of supporters of the ousted prime minister.
    After a lopsided street battle in which 90 protesters were killed the government arrested the leaders of the rebellion and charged them with “terrorism”.

    The same charge was leveled against street protesters in Iran and the Tibetan protesters in China.

    Without a clear definable agreed upon definition of “terrorism”…it is impossible to accuse someone of supporting terrorism.

    The US Irish community was one of the biggest donors to the IRA, the underground organization that bombed and killed hundreds of British citizens. Does that make Irish Americans “terrorists” supporters?

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I notice you didn’t say much about all the ambiguity surrounding Hamas. But since you don’t acknowledge that they ARE clearly a terrorist organization, I can only conclude that a group of people who demand the racial extermination of Jews and have pursued that policy since their founding with thousands of violent acts committed against women and children, are not necessarily terrorists as per your warped view of reality.

    I also notice you continue to pursue the fallacious, “Unless there is complete agreement by everyone on the planet as to what a terrorist is, then there can be no such thing as a ‘terrorist'” argument. It’s as much crap this time as it was last time.

    As for Sharon Angle’s statement, two things:
    1) You’re point is that, if the left says one thing, and the right says another, that we’re at some kind of epistemic parity. If liberals say the earth is flat, and conservatives say it is round, then the earth is amorphous. How ridiculous.

    2) Let’s say for the sake of argument you’re right about Sharon Angle pushing for bloody, violent revolution. Let’s say that her remark clearly underscores that she won’t be satisfied until America is bathed in blood. And after all it’s just so obvious from what she said!!! And that therefore that characterizes the Tea Party. Okay. Then by the same argument, all Democrats are Marxist-fascist, because didn’t Maxine Waters demand that we socialize private businesses? And after all, if one member of a party says something, then we can clearly taint the entire movement by what that one person said.

    Was founding father Thomas Jefferson a terrorist? Do you hate the America he envisioned? These are yes or no questions. I won’t post your remarks unless you answer these questions. If you believe that Sharon Angle qualifies as a terrorist for quoting and agreeing with Jefferson, then you clearly affirm that the man she quotes and agrees with is likewise a terrorist. And that America was founded on what you, Norris Hall, so insightfully perceived was all along a terrorist vision.

    If you think that the United States is worrying about Tibet and the IRA, you’re an even bigger fool than I previously thought. Clearly, you are throwing these groups into the mix alongside al Qaeda and Hamas in order to create the illusion of a dilemma. We’re supposed to think of Tibet and somehow conclude, “Well, good gravy! I suppose Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the men who flew passenger planes into buildings filled with people weren’t terrorists either. How can we ever know? Let’s just surrender, bare our throats, and wait for these non-terrorists to cut them so we can squeal like pigs until we die ala Daniel Pearl. That’s our only recourse, because we’re just too pathologically stupid to make an obvious moral distinction.”

    Is Osama bin Laden your patriot? Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack, and the man who sawed Daniel Pearl’s head off – your patriot??? I mean, it’s a legitimate question, given that at the very least you lack the moral intelligence to view these people as terrorists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: