05.05.2010 Vision of a Supreme Court Justice


On the day of the vision, President Barack Obama
was interviewing his short list of candidates
for Supreme Court Justice.


5 days after the vision
President Obama announced his nomination
of a WOMAN, Elena Kagan,
for the next Supreme Court Justice

FULFILLED 08.05.2010

3 months to the day of the vision,
the U.S. Senate confirms Elena Kagan’s nomination
and she is sworn in on 08.07.2010

Documentation of why the Lord
revealed this as a prophetic warning.

THE VISION: Wednesday, May 5, 2010

While taking a break at noon today, sitting out back, I dozed off for several seconds and the Lord gave me a vision.  I saw a woman, from her waist up, dressed in a black robe, and I clearly heard the Lord say, “Supreme Court Justice”.  I did not see her face clear enough to recognize her, just to see that it was a woman.  I immediately opened my eyes and knew that the Lord was showing me something important.

I had not heard anything on the news concerning the Supreme Court, and did not know that the president was in the process of interviewing his chosen candidates for nomination to replace a retiring judge, but I sensed something was happening and I needed to research it.  I asked the Lord to show me what He wanted me to see as I did a Google search for “Supreme Court Justice” and found that President Obama was indeed interviewing his short-list of candidates this very day.

UPDATE 05.10.2010


As I said in this original post, I did not know WHO Obama was going to select, only that it would be a woman.  God giving me this vision made me know that this selection would be pivotal for this nation.  The vision was confirmed today when President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elana Kagan as his pick for Supreme Court Justice.  Considering that President Obama has surrounded himself with radicals who desire America to be transformed into a socialist state, it is indeed noteworthy to include her radical views as reported below.

The nominee will have to be approved by Congress, and with a democratic majority, one would assume the president will get his wishes.  Only time will tell what the outcome of this process will be, and what will come from the appointment.

AP source: Elena Kagan picked for Supreme Court

It was unofficially announced through news media this morning that Obama has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagen for the Supreme Court nominee.

Elena Kagan

Excerpts from:

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be nominated Monday to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, a person familiar with the president’s thinking says, positioning the high court to have three women justices for the first time.

…Kagan is known as sharp and politically savvy and has enjoyed a blazing legal career. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law School, first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration, and now first in Obama’s mind to succeed legendary liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, which would give her the opportunity to extend Obama’s legacy for a generation.

…A source close to the selection process said a central element in Obama’s choice was Kagan’s reputation for bringing together people of competing views and earning their respect….Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years.

…This year, Obama particularly wanted someone who could provide leadership and help sway fellow justices toward a majority opinion. The president has grown vocal in his concern that the conservative-tilting court is giving too little voice to average people.

Kagan is known for having won over liberal and conservative faculty at the difficult-to-unite Harvard Law School, where she served as dean for nearly six years…She would be the third Jewish justice along with six Catholics. With Stevens’ retirement, the court will have no Protestants, the most prevalent denomination in the United States.

UPDATE 07.22.2010

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Kagan Promoted Shariah Law at Harvard

Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Barack Obama White House. But no more.

Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.

Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.

Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.

Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 — and likely more today.

At Harvard, Elena Kagan “proceeded to forge the law school’s ‘Islamic Finance Project.”” It’s purpose, according to McCarthy, was “to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector.”

Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers — now in the Obama administration — accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam’s history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.

Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes “good ideas wherever they originate” and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.

For this reason — if for no other — senators should vote no on her confirmation.



Elena Kagan, Radical?

BY Michael Goldfarb

May 6, 2009 11:06 AM

Earlier this week, President Obama called Republican Senator Orrin Hatch to discuss the vacancy on the Court left by Justice Souter. According to Hatch’s office, the president “assured Hatch…that he would appoint a pragmatist, not a radical, to this important position.” Among the names considered at the top of President Obama’s short-list is that of Elena Kagan, the recently confirmed solicitor general and former dean of the Harvard Law School. Yesterday THE WEEKLY STANDARD obtained a copy of Elena Kagan’s senior thesis, written almost thirty years ago while an undergraduate at Princeton. The title of the thesis: “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933”

Obviously, one imagines that Kagan’s views have evolved significantly over the last three decades, but given Obama’s stated aversion to radicalism, it’s certainly worth noting the radical roots of the nation’s top lawyer. In her acknowledgments, Kagan writes:

“Sean Wilentz painstakingly read each page of this thesis – occasionally two or three times. His comments and suggestions were invaluable; his encouragement was both needed and appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.”

What were Kagan’s own ideas?

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?”(pp. 127)

“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.” (pp. 129-130)

Her political sympathies (at the time) seem quite clear — and radical.

HT: Princeton University Library


(Excerpts from an article in their Faith & Reason section dated May 10, 2010)

Today, USA TODAY’s Joan Biskupic reports:The New York Times, profile begins with Kagan’s Jewish background.

She was a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side — a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family’s rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge’s robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice, underneath.

When Stevens, the only Protestant on the court, retired, NPR’s Nina Totenberg called the topic of religion “radioactive.” She noted:

In fact, six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That’s half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Depending on the Stevens replacement, there may be no Protestants left on the court at all in a majority Protestant nation where, for decades and generations, all of the justices were Protestant.

Because of Obama picking a Jew, I found the following op-ed concerning Obama’s dealings with Israel and with Jewish political influence in America to be very enlightening and relevant to this Supreme Court pick.  It is a lengthy article, but I found it worth my time to read.  You can read it here.

UPDATE 06.29.2010

CONFIRMATION: The following is a scathing report of how religious Jewish leaders see Obama’s pick of Kagan for Supreme Court Justice.  This lines up with why the Lord would show me what He did concerning this appointment.

Arutz Sheva


850 Orthodox Rabbis vs. Obama’s Supreme Court Choice

by Eli Stutz

The Rabbical Alliance of America, representing 850 orthodox Rabbis, harshly criticized U.S. President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. Kagan, 50, is set to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, 90, the court’s foremost liberal.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, speaking on behalf of the body of rabbis, issued a statement explaining the Rabbis position, in which he said:

“Ms. Kagan is Non-Kosher – not fit to serve on the supreme court or any other court. It is clear from Ms. Kagan’s record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, Partial-Birth-Abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the “supremacy” of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of Biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society’s already steep decline into Sodom and Gommorah.”

Levin told CNSNews.com that his fellow rabbis and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews–are confused at the Obama’s choice of Kagan.

“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone–or some group–is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”

“We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head–from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies have no right to be delivered.’”…

MORE REVELATION:  Kagan’s affiliations with communism.

I encourage you to go HERE and read the entire article concerning the documented associations of Elena Kagan with communist groups.

CONDEMNATION of Kagen from former U.S. Surgeon General

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop writes open letter to Senate against Kagan’s appointment as Supreme Court Justice.

Due to memos and documents from the Clinton Library revealing that President Obama’s nominee for Supreme

Court Justice, Elena Kagan, altered and manipulated a medical statement made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written an open letter to the U.S. Senate urging them to vote against her nomination.  The following is his letter in which he calls Kagan’s action disgraceful, unethical, manipulative, deeply disturbing, and that she is guilty of twisting medical science for political gain.

“An Open Letter to the American People:

For many years, before, during and after my service as surgeon general of the United States, I’ve been known for presenting my unvarnished opinion on medical matters, regardless of the views of political parties or outside influences. The time has come for me to do so again.

I was deeply disturbed to learn the Elena Kagan, the nominee for Supreme Court scheduled for a Senate committee vote next week, manipulated the medical policy statement on partial-birth abortion of a major medical organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in January 1997.

The problem for me, as a physician, is that she was willing to replace a medical statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical data. During the partial-birth abortion debate in the 1990s, medical evidence was of paramount importance.

Ms. Kagan’s amendment to the ACOG Policy Statement–that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman”–had no basis in published medical studies or data. No published medical data supported her amendment in 1997, and none supports it today.

Indeed, there was, and is, no reliable medical data that partial-birth abortion is safe or safer than alternative medical procedures.

There are other medical options.

In my many decades of service as a medical doctor, I have never known of a case where partial-birth abortion was necessary in place of a more humane and ethical alternative. Not only have I never seen such a case, but I have never known of any physician who had to do a partial-birth abortion–nor have I ever met a physician who knew of anyone who had to perform one out of medical necessity. In fact, partial-birth abortion has risks of its own, and could injure a woman.

Medical science should not have been twisted in 1997 for political or legislative gains. Ms. Kagan’s political language, a direct result of the amendment she made to ACOG’s Policy Statement, made its way into American jurisprudence and misled federal courts for the next decade.

She misrepresented not only the science but also misrepresented her role in front of your elected representatives in the United States Senate.

This is unethical, and it is disgraceful, especially for one who would be tasked with being a measured and fair-minded judge.

Americans United for Life Action has released a thorough and comprehensive report on this matter, a report that provides substantive evidence of Ms. Kagan’s actions in this matter. I ask that Senators and the American people give this report their most serious consideration. I urge the Senate to reject the politization of medical science and vote no on the Kagan nomination.


C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D.
Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, 1981-89

UPDATE: 07.04.2010

The most troubling revelation
concerning Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court



Obama Supreme Court Nominee And Islamic Law

Several years ago, I was meeting with a British expert on radical Islam who was bemoaning the fact that the British government had approved the establishment of a national board that would rule on compliance with Islamic Finance. He was upset by the acceptance of the British government of a finance system that would be recognized as being outside of the British financial system. While he felt this was a policy mistake he was more concerned that it supported the concept that Muslims in the United Kingdom would live under their own rules, separate and apart from society at large.

Britain’s capitulation to the lobbying of their Muslim population has gone far beyond the financial sector. In all walks of life British Muslims act like they are a protected class that can live outside the norms of British society. While this concept of allowing a class of people to live outside of mainstream society is troubling by itself, the leadership of the British Muslim community are advocates of the most regressive form of Islamic law, Sharia. A basic tenet of Sharia is that Muslims can not recognize nor should they obey a state that is not ruled by Sharia law.

Last week, Senator Jeff Sessions exposed the troubling relationship between Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and Sharia Law. As Frank Gaffney reports, Senator Sessions is questioning Kagan’s silence when as Dean of Harvard Law School she did not oppose a Saudi gift of $20 million to establish an Islamic Studies center. Kagan, who ventured beyond the Law School to criticize policies of the United States military, remained silent when the regressive Saudis established a Center on campus that would be under the influence of the Sharia culture promulgated by the Saudi royal family.

And to add insult to injury, Kagan helped launch an Islamic Finance Project that advocates the United States following the British model of accepting Islamic laws of finance. In other words, Kagan believes that the laws that govern American society should not apply to Muslims. This should be of great concern to everyone who understands how this downgrades our Constitution, our legal system, and our way of life.

In Britain they followed the Kagan road and they are suffering because of this capitulation to an alien and aggressive legal force. We must not let that happen here.

VISION FULFILLED: August 5, 2010

Elena Kagan sworn in as 112th Supreme Court Justice 08.07.2010 (Associated Press)

With a near partisan vote of 63-37, the Democratic controlled U.S. Senate confirmed Elena Kagan as the 112th Supreme Court Justice, Thursday, August 5, 2010.  This confirmation was the fulfillment of a vision and a Word of the Lord that He gave me three months to the day  earlier.  Over the past three months the Lord has led me to much confirmation as to why I sensed so strongly with this revelation that this woman who would be nominated by President Obama and confirmed by Congress would be detrimental to our nation.

Elena Kagan was sworn into office today, Saturday, August 7, 2010.

UPDATE–Posted 04.28.2011

When the Lord gave me a vision of a female Supreme Court Justice on 05.05.2010, I knew it was a warning.  Five days later, 05.10.2010, President Obama announced that his nominee to the Supreme Court was Elena Kagan, and three months to the day of the vision, 08.05.2010, the U.S. Senate confirmed her nomination.

According to Sam Baker’s article blogged on “thehill.com” this past Monday:

“Supreme Court Justice Kagan did not recuse herself from Monday’s decision not to fast-track the high court’s review of Virginia’s challenge to the healthcare reform law, prompting speculation that President Obama’s former solicitor general intends to take part in the case if and when it reaches her level.”

Kagan’s decision to not recuse herself from this decision pretty much signals that she has no qualms over the obvious conflict of interest and will not recuse herself from any deliberations concerning ObamaCare.  This is in spite of the fact that as President Obama’s Solicitor General, she gave the administration legal advice on crafting and defending the Health-Care bill.

God warned us, we saw who she is, and we saw it coming. The Lord is FAITHFUL.  He does not want us to be ignorant.  He does not want us to be deceived.

“When the righteous are in authority,
the people rejoice:
but when the wicked beareth rule,
the people mourn.”

Proverbs 29:2

%d bloggers like this: