The SCOTUS is corrupt

[JB] Lying is not a crime. To knowingly affirm a false statement —the intentional declaration of a falsehood— is wrong, but it is not a crime. A former POTUS, a proven unfit and corrupt holder of the Presidency, established this legal fact in the public opinion.

The intentional misrepresentation of the truth is the seed of all corruption. Because politicians covet power, the latent virus of corruption is prevalent in the world of politics. This primal urge to grab power for selfish purposes, disguised as public service, may be kept on leash by a moral sense of guilt and the subsequent fear of shame, if indulged in and exposed. However, this latent poison may be unleashed by shameless politicians actively spreading the disease of corruption into the body politic of a democracy. Lacking a moral compass, these vectors of corruption can abort a democratic experiment, like the US.

The five Justices who overturned the right to privacy in the US cheated their way into the SCOTUS, eroding its legitimacy. They lied, and they lied under oath to the American public, hiding their true intention to subvert a judicial precedent supported by five decades of jurisprudence, and by the vast majority of Americans. They thus exposed a compromised legal system unable to uphold the truth, gambling to protect the innocent at the expense of acquitting wrongdoers hiding under the cloak of “reasonable doubt.”

In a democracy, grabbing power with the intention to impose the will of a minority is corrupt. However, this is exactly the acknowledged undemocratic gamesmanship of the conservative movement in the US, from the Electoral College to the SCOTUS, aided and abetted by corporate greed, religious zealotry and racist demagoguery.

The geographic majority of rural, conservative America wants to uncompromisingly impose its will on the demographic majority of urban, liberal America. The seed of a Second American Civil War is thus planted, as promoted by the idealogues of the MAGA movement believing in 80-year cycles of wars.

May they be proved wrong, sealing the door where this nativist evil dwells in America, and restoring the Plan of peace —the peace of right human relations and social justice— in the US and the world. -JB

---

[Halina Bak-Hughes] Commentator Fareed Zakaria every Sunday presents a world news segment titled – “Fareed’s Take”.  This Sunday’s segment, 6/26/22, is worthy of our view and education.

Fareed reviews the two Supreme Court (SC) decisions made this past week re a NY gun control law and the Roe v Wade decision as a departure from conservative decisions to “radical decisions” of late. The 5 minute segment is transcribed below, but do watch the video to hear him speak and to experience the impact of viewing two short excerpts found in news archives – one by a conservative supreme court Justice 33 years ago, the other by a scholar of the Constitution explaining what was really meant by gun ownership in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This segment is shocking, priceless and revelatory in meaning and import.   

Fareed begins: “American Democracy has been under stress for some time. Trust in its institutions has been the lowest on record. 

“The SC’s decision on Roe v Wade has brought the public’s confidence in the Court to an all time low … as with the others … is now defined by partisanship and polarization. 

“The court’s decisions this week are not conservative, they are radical.”

“One of the time honored doctrines has been a respect for precedent – “stare decisis”, and yet in two days the court swept aside a right that for half a century American jurisprudence had held as a constitutional right. 

“And it also uprooted a NY law regulating guns that was 111 years old and had never before been found to be in conflict with the constitution.

“Many of the justices [e.g., Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett] were asked in their nomination hearings about Roe v Wade and stare decisis, answering in a way that any plain observer would describe as declaring the precedent of Roe and the many rulings affirming it, should be respected. 

“It’s worth noting that the power of judicial review, by which the SC evaluates laws and strikes down those it deems unconstitutional is itself nowhere in the constitution, was created by an 1803 Ruling from Chief Justice John Marshall, and is respected by all three branches of government, because of stare decisis. 

“We’ll talk more about Roe later.  The courts other decision on guns is actually equally radical.  

The 2nd amendment is in its entirety only 27 words with three oddly placed commas:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, 

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  

With “no disrespect to James Madison, grammarians and their red pens would have a field day … No one is exactly sure what the first clause about the militia has to do with the clause about the right to bear arms.  

“For almost 200 years, however, the lack of clarity [regarding the militia and gun ownership] was barely an issue. Many states had what we would call very strong gun control laws, and they passed mustard with all sorts of courts. But then in the 1970’s new leadership took over the NRA and made it the group’s mission to protect every citizens individual right, supposedly enshrined in the 2nd amendment, to keep and bear arms.”

“This caused former chief justice of the supreme court, Warren Berger, a conservative jurist appointed by Richard Nixon, to say the following on PBS in 1991:   

“This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by a special interests group, than I have ever seen in my entire lifetime.”

“217 years after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia and his colleagues on the SC discovered in the Heller decision an individual right to carry and bear arms, treating the first clause of the 2nd amendment as if it were totally inconsequential.  In fact, the founders knew exactly what well-regulated militias meant. 

The scholar Michael Waldman told me: 

“You had an individual right to gun ownership to fulfill your duty to serve in the militia.  Every adult white man was required by law to serve in the militia, and required to own a military weapon and to keep it at home.”  

[Therefore, the wording in the Constitution regarding gun ownership was meant in the context of service in the militia at that time and which required a gun to do so. It had no reference then or in the future to individual citizens owning or bearing arms. The re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the NRA was selfishly motivated to make billions of dollars, corrupting politicians in the process when up for re-election to exchange NRA backed legislation with large donations. The consequence of these “evil” motives, by twisting the meaning of the constitution, has resulted in the death, maiming and wounding of countless citizens, and the destruction of life and everyday happiness in the United States]. 

“The latest SC ruling (on June 23, 2022) striking down a NY law that restricted who can carry a concealed hand gun in public is even more radical than Heller.

“The oldest legal tradition has been to balance an individuals right with the State’s concerns for public safety.  For example, the court stated in 1919 that your right to free speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

“This supreme court seems less and less impartial and judicious and more nakedly political, which undermines trust in a great American institution that was once respected but has been losing that respect in recent years.”

“We know that January 6 was a terrible day for American democracy.  Sadly, we now have to add two more days – June 23rd and 24th to that calendar of shame.”

---

Towards A New Renascence:
A Psychocentric Revelation

We can imagine how such psycho-centric paradigm would reframe of current cultural debates and dilemmas on social issues, such as reproductive rights and gender identity. The conceiving womb would be viewed as the landing runway of an incoming human soul, with the air traffic controller — the woman, assisted by spiritual advisors — deciding the timing and the circumstances, as well as the karmic implications of her decision.

https://agniyoga.info/2022/06/19/a-new-renascence/

---

My personal response to a right-to-life fellow American

I respect your fervor to protect the right to life. That’s why I oppose the free access of weapons that kill innocent children in schools and in big cities. I know that guns don’t kill; sick and unhinged people do. However, neither do mosquitoes kill; the viruses they carry do. That’s why we in public health do control mosquitoes as vectors of disease. Weapons are vectors of death.

I do share your fervor in defending the right to life. However, we need to consider two lives here: an existing human life, the woman, and the other, a potential human life. Your belief that human life begins at conception is your right, one that you should not impose on others. In my case, I am convinced that we reincarnate, that’s why I see abortion from a different perspective. However, I do not impose my belief on you. I am free to declare my truth, as as you are to declare yours, without imposing it.

Many abortions may just be a postponement of the opportunity to incarnate. I personally would not want to be born into unwanted circumstances; I would prefer to be born at the appropriate time, with the informed consent of the womb that would incubate me.

Every woman has the right of self-development before assuming the responsibility of motherhood. She must be cautious, though — as much as the inseminating man — when considering the consequences of a sexual relationship. However, having sexual relations should not become a sentence of guilt punishable by unwanted motherhood. Many poor mothers having abortions love their children but cannot financially support more children, not always having control over their sex lives. There are so many particular circumstances that it is better not to judge. We must trust the woman as the final arbitrator of such an intimate decision, particularly when she is unable to rely on a public welfare safety net to provide food, shelter, health care and education for her children after birth.

According to my beliefs, which I expose but do not impose, there are karmic consequences of such a harrowing decision, particularly when it is done to prevent the birth of a fetus with congenital defects. Mother Nature spontaneously aborts 2/3 of these pregnancies. However, it is possible that the surviving fetuses represent a lesson of love for future parents. Who am I to judge?

Let us trust in the woman’s inner dialogue with God to make such a decision. The God that you and I believe in has created us free. We will succeed and fail in exercising our free will, according to the circumstances. So we learn in life, always with faith in the love and infinite compassion of a supreme Being ruling the universe, Who some of us call God. -JB

---

The Great Invocation

From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into human minds.
Let Light descend on Earth.

From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth.

From the center where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills –
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.

From the center which we call the human race
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.

Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.

The Great Invocation: Its Use and Significance • Lucis Trust

---