Barack Obama has nominated his Elena Kagan to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. It is so easy to be apathetic or not informed on occurring issues. This is one that could have far reaching ramifications and worthy of your consideration.
You should be reminded that this is a lifetime appointment, so perhaps we should consider the implications for our Constitution and for liberty.
Will this Ivy League academic be an advocate for Essential Liberty and Rule of Law, or will she follow the errant notion of a "living constitution"? According to Obama, Kagan "is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds," probably admitting that she is most certainly an elitist Leftist. Another academic lawyer from Princeton, Harvard and Chicago Law School and, from past experience, it is evident that we don't need any more of these.
Obama's appraisal of Kagan reflects that of ultra-Leftist Princeton prof Wilentz, under whose guidance Kagan wrote her enthusiastic thesis on socialism in the early 20th century. In her thesis, Kagan lamented that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded, "A coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness."
"Why . . . has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?" she asked. "Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties? Further, Kagan lamented the fact that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded, "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."
One would surmise this refers to the "hope and change" necessary for Obama to make good on his promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."
Just as Obama was mentored by Marxists, Kagan has been steeped in socialist doctrine, and is elated with the resurgence of socialism in the U.S. under the leadership of Obama and his minions in the legislative and judicial branches.
Although Obama insists that Kagan "is an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law", in fact, she has exactly no judicial experience and very limited litigation experience. According to Legal authority Ken Klukowski, Kagan is an ideal nominee for Obama: "She's a liberal without a paper trail."
Most of Kagan's experience is academic at the University of Chicago Law School and as dean of Harvard Law School, where she spent considerable time and effort to boot military recruiters off campus at the height of the Iraq war. Her reason for this attack on our nation's ability to defend itself was the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which Kagan called "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."
We should note that even The Washington Post concludes that her qualifications "can only be called thin," saying further, "even her professional background is thin."
While the media pictures Kagan, predictably, as a moderate "consensus-builder," Kagan is, in fact, a genuine, hardcore Leftist, a former legal counsel to the Clinton regime who began her political career as a staffer for extremely liberal Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign in 1988.
She graduated from Princeton in 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office. A New York Times story about Kagan notes, "On Election Night, she drowned her sorrow in vodka and tonic as Ronald Reagan took the White House" which she proclaimed "the darkest period of American politics".
Recently, the questionable and thin legal trail she has established as Obama's Solicitor to the Supreme Court raises serious questions about Kagan's commitment to the plain language of the First Amendment. In a 1996 law review article, Kagan wrote that the "redistribution of speech" is not "itself an illegitimate end," which is another way of saying that the court has a responsibility to level the playing field for various ideas, including the Internet, talk radio, etc She recently had a similar argument before the High Court regarding the government's authority to regulate print materials under campaign finance laws, a notion that Chief Justice John Roberts said, "As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that proposition is startling and dangerous."
She strongly supports the position of Justice Thurgood Marshall, of whom she wrote admiringly, "In Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government -- to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission. ... She has said, "The Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective.' The Constitution today ... contains a great deal to be proud of. But the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty,' 'justice,' and 'equality.'"
Setting aside her utter disdain for our Constitution and its authors, Kagan is flat-out wrong about the role of the High Court. It exists to safeguard the unbiased application of our Constitution's original intent. Marshall, previously delivered a lecture entitled, "The Constitution: A Living Document," in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that succumbs to the contemporary political, moral and cultural climate.
Promoters of a "living constitution" have judicial activists who have continuously tried to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat rather than its prescribed method in Article V. There is no doubt that Kagan will advocate that heretical and treasonous interpretation.
Obama claims that Kagan understands the law "not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page -- but as it affects the lives of ordinary people." Not as "words on a page"? Truly a revisionist President. It is exactly that rejection of plain language of our Constitution that caused President Thomas Jefferson to call the court "the despotic branch."
Back in 1987, during confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork (a man that history has shown was one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated to the High Court), one Leftist senator commented, "The Framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility," especially in regard to the nominee's "political, legal and constitutional views." That senator was Joe Biden, who rejected Judge Bork because he was a "constitutional constructionist," which was exactly the trait our Founders wanted in jurists.
Hopefully there are enough protectors (with enough common sense) of our Constitution in the Senate today who will question Kagan's "political, legal and constitutional views," and reject her nomination.
DE
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
America's Nuclear Surrender
America's Nuclear Surrender
The administration has proudly revealed a state secret to our enemies before a U.N. conference on nuclear nonproliferation. It wants to lead by example on disarmament, but Iran and North Korea aren't following. And the administration cannot convince them to use logic.
State Hillary Clinton openly disclosed U.S. nuclear secrets to the U.N. conference while arrogantly proclaiming it showed that America is sending "a clear, unmistakable signal" that this nation is committed to nuclear disarmament.
Not since the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact that sought to outlaw war as an instrument of national policy has there been such an astonishing display of naïveté. It is important to note that Kellogg-Briand laid the groundwork for Munich in 1938, Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the disaster of World War II. Among the signatories were Germany and Japan. It is evident that claiming to be for peace and disarmament brings neither.
President Kennedy was correct when he said "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." Compare that call with Hillary Clinton's proclamation that "beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991." Does she, or her boss, think that North Korea and Iran give a 'rats ass' about complying? Pardon my language.
The U.S. evidently thinks it can shame Pyongyang and Tehran into compliance. Well, good luck with that pipe dream. A national policy that seems to be one of peace through weakness and timid negotiation will never succeed. Never has, never will.
President Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to eliminate Israel whenever Tehran achieves a nuclear bomb, reminded the UN that the U.S. was the only nation to use nuclear weapons. Our position should be: "Want to test our resolve, Mahmoud?"
Instead, President Obama sent a letter that said, "We will see whether nations without nuclear weapons will fulfill their obligation to forsake them." The answer to that with rogue nations like N. Korea and Iran is a foregone conclusion. Diplomatic success? Fat chance.
Our nuclear arsenal at present is not only smaller, but older and less reliable. The current administration refuses to do the testing necessary to insure an adequate arsenal or to develop a replacements to keep America's nuclear deterrent current and credible. Instead they think it is only a matter of talking nice and they will suddenly become sane and rational friends of peace.
The White House recently announced a Nuclear Posture Review that restricts the instances where the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in its defense. It also tells the enemy what the instances are. Now there is a nice invitation. Be sure to RSVP In a speech in Prague last year, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.
Under conditions proposed by Obama it is evident that, should we be confronted with the dire need of either pre-emptive or defensive response, it may test our resolve to defend freedom . . . and hope that the US ends up on the winning side.
DE
The administration has proudly revealed a state secret to our enemies before a U.N. conference on nuclear nonproliferation. It wants to lead by example on disarmament, but Iran and North Korea aren't following. And the administration cannot convince them to use logic.
State Hillary Clinton openly disclosed U.S. nuclear secrets to the U.N. conference while arrogantly proclaiming it showed that America is sending "a clear, unmistakable signal" that this nation is committed to nuclear disarmament.
Not since the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact that sought to outlaw war as an instrument of national policy has there been such an astonishing display of naïveté. It is important to note that Kellogg-Briand laid the groundwork for Munich in 1938, Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the disaster of World War II. Among the signatories were Germany and Japan. It is evident that claiming to be for peace and disarmament brings neither.
President Kennedy was correct when he said "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." Compare that call with Hillary Clinton's proclamation that "beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991." Does she, or her boss, think that North Korea and Iran give a 'rats ass' about complying? Pardon my language.
The U.S. evidently thinks it can shame Pyongyang and Tehran into compliance. Well, good luck with that pipe dream. A national policy that seems to be one of peace through weakness and timid negotiation will never succeed. Never has, never will.
President Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to eliminate Israel whenever Tehran achieves a nuclear bomb, reminded the UN that the U.S. was the only nation to use nuclear weapons. Our position should be: "Want to test our resolve, Mahmoud?"
Instead, President Obama sent a letter that said, "We will see whether nations without nuclear weapons will fulfill their obligation to forsake them." The answer to that with rogue nations like N. Korea and Iran is a foregone conclusion. Diplomatic success? Fat chance.
Our nuclear arsenal at present is not only smaller, but older and less reliable. The current administration refuses to do the testing necessary to insure an adequate arsenal or to develop a replacements to keep America's nuclear deterrent current and credible. Instead they think it is only a matter of talking nice and they will suddenly become sane and rational friends of peace.
The White House recently announced a Nuclear Posture Review that restricts the instances where the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in its defense. It also tells the enemy what the instances are. Now there is a nice invitation. Be sure to RSVP In a speech in Prague last year, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.
Under conditions proposed by Obama it is evident that, should we be confronted with the dire need of either pre-emptive or defensive response, it may test our resolve to defend freedom . . . and hope that the US ends up on the winning side.
DE
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Arizona SB 1070
Due to distortions and lack of detail provided by the media, it is necessary to have a better understanding of Arizona SB 1070.
Arizonans have endured many long years of federal neglect of immigration enforcement. Statistics show that half of illegal border crossings now occur in Arizona, and estimates show that state taxpayers spend more than $2 billion a year on education and healthcare for illegal immigrants and their children. Their border with Mexico is virtually a welcome mat for criminal organizations that run drugs and other contraband. Kidnappings in Phoenix are at an all-time high, and the killing last month of rancher Robert Krentz -- police suspect it was by an illegal immigrant -- is a graphic example of the effects that out of control immigration has on ordinary Arizonans. Similar conditions exist in California, New Mexico and Texas.
Faced with this ongoing crisis with little or no help from Washington, Arizona has been forced to respond to protect its residents and its finances. Now the legislature passed and Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070. This law requires all law enforcement officers in Arizona to act on reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the state and country illegally.
As a side note, it has been reported that among the large amount of 'cast off' articles and refuse left along the border, many copies of the Koran have been found. This should be troubling information since most Mexicans are Catholic.
The reaction from supporters for illegal immigrants to SB 1070 -- which, according to opinion polls, is supported by some 70% of Arizonans -- can be described as incendiary and irresponsible, not to mention completely inaccurate. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony tries to create images of Nazi Germany and Soviet totalitarianism. Reform Immigration for America, a coalition of pro-amnesty groups, warned that "it's racial profiling, and it encapsulates the hatred we are fighting."
SB 1070 is not a mandate for Arizona police to seek out illegal immigrants. It conforms fully with the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In most instances, Arizona's new law mirrors existing but non-enforced Federal Laws. Under the law, Arizona police are prohibited from racially profiling or stopping anybody merely because of appearance or ethnicity. They may inquire about immigration status only if there is justification for the stop under the Constitution -- such as investigating a possible crime -- and there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the U.S. illegally.
And what is reasonable suspicion? It might include the lack of any sort of valid U.S. identification documents that police officers routinely request from anyone who is lawfully stopped. The law specifically states that race, color or ethnicity does not constitute reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the U.S. SB 1070 does nothing more than require police in Arizona to protect it's citizens and uphold responsibilities abrogated and ignored by the federal government for years.
A ruling by the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals this year provides firm legal footing for Arizona's law. In Estrada vs. Rhode Island, the court affirmed that the failure of an alien to possess alien registration documents represents probable cause for state or local police to arrest the person for a federal misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence, or detain that person until the individual's status can be verified.
Predictably, those who have consistently opposed all efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws are resorting to a campaign of lies and distortions to fight implementation of the law. The fact that Congress has avoided enforcing existing immigration laws is pure and simple vote pandering. We are a nation of laws and Congressional indifference is solely to gain latino votes.
SB 1070, plain and simple, will allow police to identify and detain people because of the laws they violate, not because they happen to meet a particular racial or ethnic profile. What it demands is that state law enforcement officers no longer turn a blind eye in situations in which they reasonably suspect that an individual they have encountered is violating U.S. immigration laws.
While violating U.S. immigration laws is, in itself, is a serious crime --- more serious is the enormous financial burden it places on the tax payers of Arizona and the rest of the country. If we, as a nation, allow the protests to succeed or for amnesty to be granted. we will be avoiding our moral obligations to law and order. We will be allowing power to 'mob rule', i.e., anarchy and to those corrupt politicians who strive only for re-election.
Merely another instance where it is time for 'All Americans To Stand Up And Be Counted'.
DE
Arizonans have endured many long years of federal neglect of immigration enforcement. Statistics show that half of illegal border crossings now occur in Arizona, and estimates show that state taxpayers spend more than $2 billion a year on education and healthcare for illegal immigrants and their children. Their border with Mexico is virtually a welcome mat for criminal organizations that run drugs and other contraband. Kidnappings in Phoenix are at an all-time high, and the killing last month of rancher Robert Krentz -- police suspect it was by an illegal immigrant -- is a graphic example of the effects that out of control immigration has on ordinary Arizonans. Similar conditions exist in California, New Mexico and Texas.
Faced with this ongoing crisis with little or no help from Washington, Arizona has been forced to respond to protect its residents and its finances. Now the legislature passed and Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070. This law requires all law enforcement officers in Arizona to act on reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the state and country illegally.
As a side note, it has been reported that among the large amount of 'cast off' articles and refuse left along the border, many copies of the Koran have been found. This should be troubling information since most Mexicans are Catholic.
The reaction from supporters for illegal immigrants to SB 1070 -- which, according to opinion polls, is supported by some 70% of Arizonans -- can be described as incendiary and irresponsible, not to mention completely inaccurate. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony tries to create images of Nazi Germany and Soviet totalitarianism. Reform Immigration for America, a coalition of pro-amnesty groups, warned that "it's racial profiling, and it encapsulates the hatred we are fighting."
SB 1070 is not a mandate for Arizona police to seek out illegal immigrants. It conforms fully with the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In most instances, Arizona's new law mirrors existing but non-enforced Federal Laws. Under the law, Arizona police are prohibited from racially profiling or stopping anybody merely because of appearance or ethnicity. They may inquire about immigration status only if there is justification for the stop under the Constitution -- such as investigating a possible crime -- and there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the U.S. illegally.
And what is reasonable suspicion? It might include the lack of any sort of valid U.S. identification documents that police officers routinely request from anyone who is lawfully stopped. The law specifically states that race, color or ethnicity does not constitute reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the U.S. SB 1070 does nothing more than require police in Arizona to protect it's citizens and uphold responsibilities abrogated and ignored by the federal government for years.
A ruling by the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals this year provides firm legal footing for Arizona's law. In Estrada vs. Rhode Island, the court affirmed that the failure of an alien to possess alien registration documents represents probable cause for state or local police to arrest the person for a federal misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence, or detain that person until the individual's status can be verified.
Predictably, those who have consistently opposed all efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws are resorting to a campaign of lies and distortions to fight implementation of the law. The fact that Congress has avoided enforcing existing immigration laws is pure and simple vote pandering. We are a nation of laws and Congressional indifference is solely to gain latino votes.
SB 1070, plain and simple, will allow police to identify and detain people because of the laws they violate, not because they happen to meet a particular racial or ethnic profile. What it demands is that state law enforcement officers no longer turn a blind eye in situations in which they reasonably suspect that an individual they have encountered is violating U.S. immigration laws.
While violating U.S. immigration laws is, in itself, is a serious crime --- more serious is the enormous financial burden it places on the tax payers of Arizona and the rest of the country. If we, as a nation, allow the protests to succeed or for amnesty to be granted. we will be avoiding our moral obligations to law and order. We will be allowing power to 'mob rule', i.e., anarchy and to those corrupt politicians who strive only for re-election.
Merely another instance where it is time for 'All Americans To Stand Up And Be Counted'.
DE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
