Obama Will Not Secure the Borders, Plays Politics Instead

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

If only the liberals thought the illegals would become Republicans, we'd have a border fence within a year.

Great GOP Ad

This is a great ad.  Really drives home the point how much Obama sucks. This is what happens when you vote for liberals.

Where's the Leadership?

Is it just me or do we have a personal injury attorney pretending to President?

No leadership. No accountability. Just blame, threats, bigger government, and more taxes.

He flat out lied when he said we are running out of places to drill.  We have plenty of land and closer to shore (non deep) drilling left untapped.

This is what happens when you elect liberals, especially those unqualified for the job.

When Liberals Attack

These liberals are such a violent bunch. This is what happens is you ask a liberal Democrat a legitimate question. Here is Democrat Rep. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina committing battery on a student who approached him on the street. For your viewing pleasure... When Congressman Attack!!!

Gulf Oil Spill Makes Obama Whine

Obama explains that his opponents would have fought him if he had pre-emptively cracked down on BP. From JustOneMinute:

In an interview with POLITICO, the president said: “I think it’s fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending.”

Wow. Of course,others would have criticized the President for taking his eye off of the vital effort to reform healthcare. And speaking of which, if the goal of Obama's Presidency is to avoid criticism and confrontation (rather than, for example, advancing policies in which he believes), why didn't he just drop the push for healthcare reform?

The First Emoter also adopted an old Frank Rich talking point:

The president also implied that anti-big government types such as tea party activists were being hypocritical on the issue.

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said. “Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

Let's see - BP is drilling on Federally leased site in a Gulf which borders five states and several other countries. I see an Federal role there that is a bit different from the Feds bailing out the guy down the street who over-extended himself when he bought a house, or taking over health care, but maybe that is just me.

From Red State:

Hmmmm. Notice a pattern?

Seems like our Commander-in-Chief feels that it’s not necessary to engage another being in conversation, because with his superior intellect, he’s able to discern what they’re going to say, without their having said it!
And then he blames them for what he thinks they would have said!

My Star Trek days were long ago, but even Spock had to come into physical contact with the party on the other end of the Vulcan mind-meld, if I recall correctly.

You can’t play this game, Mr. President. It’s not fair, but worse, it’s not presidential. (Imagine FDR before Yalta: “What’s the point of meeting with Stalin? I know he’s going to want Eastern Europe.”)(Imagine Ronaldus Maximus in Berlin: “I suppose I could ask Mikhail to tear down this wall, but I bet I know what he’d say!)

And your speculation deflects attention from the actions you did take with respect to the MMS, namely appointing Liz Birnbaum to head the agency: an Ivy League environmental lawyer who wouldn’t know an oil well if she were to fall bass-ackwards into one. How are you going to blame the Republicans for that boo-boo?

From Patterico:

It’s everyone’s fault except Obama’s. He even blamed the media for focusing on his lack of passion because it makes “good TV.”

Expecting government to do its job in cleaning up the BP Oil Spill is not a justification for Obama’s massive deficits; his takeover of the banks, the car industry, and healthcare; or his repeated bailouts, pork, and stimulus projects. Except to Obama.

Senate Votes Away Constitution and Gives Unchecked Power to EPA

The rogue democrat Senate voted yesterday to give an unconstitutional power grab to the EPA. Get ready for the massive jobs losses, high energy costs, and brownouts. More liberty lost. Ain't socialism/marxism wonderful?

Freedom Action urges Senators to vote Yes on Thursday on S.J. Res. 26, Senator Lisa Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding. Senate passage of the Murkowski Resolution will be the first step in stopping EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate the economy into stagnation. This is a key vote that will have a major impact on Americans’ future living standards.

Senators who vote No on the Murkowski Resolution are voting for a regulatory train wreck that will result in much higher energy prices, less money in consumers’ pockets to spend on other things, and lost jobs in manufacturing industries that will lose competitiveness from higher energy costs. It is therefore critically important for the Senate to pass the Murkowski Resolution on Thursday and begin the process of taking back Congress’s authority from an out-of-control EPA.

It was defeated 47-53.

The EPA is packed with Obama's unelected marxists. Now they get to make laws concerning CO2. A gas people exhale and plants use for photosynthesis. This sets up Al Gore to become a billionaire over phony science.

We are getting ever so close to the abyss, and past the point of no return. Don't you just love democrats?

The worst Republican is better that any democrat any day of the week. Our society may collapse.

Obama's $400 Million Dollar Stimulus for Terrorists

America is broke, but Obama has found a way to gives $400 million dollars in aid to Hamas. Wonder how much of it will turn into weapons? Obama is the worst President in history. Loser.

From CNN:

The United States will contribute $400 million in development aid to the Palestinian territories and work with Israel to loosen its embargo on Gaza, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Obama's announcement came after White House talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The money will be used to build housing, schools, water and health care systems in both the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank and Gaza, which is ruled by the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.

Obama called the situation in Gaza "unsustainable," and said the United States would work with its European allies, Egypt and Israel to find a "new conceptual framework" for the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

"We agree Israelis have right to prevent arms from coming into Gaza," Obama said. But he said "new mechanisms" were needed to allow more goods to reach the territory - and he repeated that the long-term solution was a permanent deal creating "a Palestinian state side-by-side with an Israel that is secure."

Who Exactly is in the White House

The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz nails it with her editorial today. President Obama pretended successfully to 'of the people' during the campaign. Clearly now we know he is not of the people. He is not of America. He is not for America. He is for himself and his ideology. Period.

From Ms. Rabinowitz's editorial:

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe...

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Shows Leadership Obama Lacks

President Obama couldn't suck enough. We are officially leaderless in Washington D.C. Thank God for people like Bobby Jindal.

From NECN:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Oil has pushed at least 12 miles into Louisiana's marshes, with two major pelican rookeries awash in crude.

Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.

"It is so much better for us. We don't want oil on one inch of Louisiana's coastline, but we'd much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.

The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.

"We are not waiting for them. We are going to build it," Jindal said.

"We can either fight battle -- we can fight this oil -- on the Barrier Islands 15 to 20 miles off of our coast, or we can face it in thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, clearing favoring the first option. "Every day we're not given approval on this emergency permit to create more of these sand booms is another day when that choice is made for us, as more and more miles of our shore are hit by oil."

The oil spill, which has lasted 33 days since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, has yet to be stopped by British Petroleum at the source. The situation is dire for Gulf coast states.

"It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here," Gov. Jindal said. "Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies."

Obama's Watergate

What was Joe Sestak offered and when was it offered by the White House? This will not go away. If true, its a felony and if not true then Sestak, a former Navy officer, is lying. Congressman Darrell Issa, is pushing for an investigation. Attorney General Eric Holder and the White House have been stonewalling. Sestak must come clean.

Obama's Redistribution of Wealth

From Hot Air:

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. “This is really important,” Grimes says.

This comes before the federal health-insurance subsidies hit in 2014, too. That program provides federal welfare payments to families making less than $88,000 a year who buy their health insurance through the state-run individual exchanges. As more employers dump health-insurance coverage (and they will), more Americans will move into the dependent class despite making as much as 400% above the poverty level and better household income than 60% of their fellow Americans.

It’s more than just unsustainable. We were already on an unsustainable path before Barack Obama got elected President, with pending entitlement disasters in Medicare and Social Security threatening financial oblivion. In the past sixteen months, we’ve doubled down on disaster, and the accelerated redistribution of wealth through entitlements has us careening towards it at breakneck speed.

Obama May Use ICE to Thwart Arizona Immigration Law

Now it looks likes Obama and the DHS may use or not ICE to thwart the Arizona immigration law by refusing to process detainees turned over by Arizona law enforcement.

John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.

The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.

Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."

Let's Destroy America

A great speech on what liberals are doing to the United States:

I have a plan to destroy America
by Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” –this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed–please, please–don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” –Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Who is the Real Human Rights Violator

Gulags. Rouge organ harvesting. One child per family. Male baby favoritism. Etc. Etc.  Yet another Obama administration apologist was talking to the Chinese, apologizing for the Arizona immigration law.  This administration is filled with some of the biggest losers in world history.

From the AP:

The United States and China reported no major breakthroughs Friday after only their second round of talks about human rights since 2002…

Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state, told reporters that another round will happen some time next year in Beijing…

Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person’s immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

Kagan is Full On Radical and Must Be Stopped

From Doug Ross:

RedState's invaluable Erick Erickson has published the full text of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's thesis. I have transcribed some of the key graphs, below. In fact, you can read her entire, 130-page thesis in 90 seconds here if you wish. I'm not joking about that.

It's now crystal clear that Kagan was nominated for one reason: to rubber-stamp Obama's radical agenda, including an individual mandate for socialized medicine.

She is a radical. She is a socialist. And she must be blocked at all costs.

Acknowledgements ...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...

...most historians have looked everywhere but to the American socialist movement itself for explanations of U.S. socialism's failure...

...the American socialists· "failure to build a movement that even resembled Sombart's idealized notion of a class-conscious party--a failure which they shared with most of their European counterparts--did not render their party any less significant. Nor did such a failure render their party any less successful...

[To explain why the] American socialist movement of the Progressive Era suddenly fell apart... we must turn to the internal workings and problems of the socialist movement itself.

...the dissolution of the Socialist Party resulted not from the walkout of the syndicalists in 1912 but from the infinitely more disastrous departure of the communists seven years later...

...[Early on] the [American] socialists divided into two camps: those of "constructive" and "revolutionary" socialism.

...the Russian Revolution set the spark to their long-smoldering rebellion, and the Socialist Party burst into flames. In 1919, the SP split into two, and the New York City communist movement emerged... by the last 1920's, the socialist movement in New York City was dead.

...The SP's first priority was to prepare for revolution than to work for reforms -- to bring ultimate salvation rather than immediate relief. 

Conservative craft unions could not develop the unity and class consciousness that alone would lead workers to vote the socialist ticket. They could not compel a resistant capitalist class to accept an SP electoral victory. Nor could they prepare the workers for the administration of industry in the cooperative commonwealth. According to such left-wing leaders as Boudin and Slobodin, then, the socialists needed to do all in their power to set New York's unions on a militant path. If that meant interfering with some other "arm", so be it.

...Most historians have viewed World War I as an unqualified disaster for the American socialist movement...

[During the war] both local and national socialist leaders had taken their stand: they would condemn the war in the strongest terms... having formulated their policies, the socialists turned with rekindled enthusiasm to active propaganda work...

Leon Trotsky, living in New York..., urged the Socialist Party to adopt more daring tactics in its fight against the war. In particular, he suggested that the socialists publicy declare their intention to transform the international conflict into a civil one...

Finally, the Socialists began to hold mass meetings in Madison Square Garden, with audiences that even non-socialist newspapers estimated at some 13,000. Most often, the socialists simply protested the war's continuation, using arguments and rhetoric similar to those employed before the U.S. became a belligerent...

We are told that we are in war to make the world safe for democracy. What a hollow phrase! We cannot ... " force democracy upon hostile countries by force of arms. Democracy must come from within not from without, through the light.of reason and not through the fire of guns.

Prior to April 1917, the socialists had enjoyed relative freedom to oppose the war... however, the situation [then] changed considerably. The government prosecuted socialists; the police harassed them; crowds of hysterical citizens lent federal and municipal officials a helping hand. [Ed: Racist tea-baggers, I'd surmise]

...On June 15, 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which prohibited an person from willfully helping the enemy, inciting rebellion in the armed forces or attempting to obstruct the government's recruiting efforts... [Ed: sounds like the modern Democrat Party]

...[In 1919] the intra-party dissension that had built up for almost two decades came to a climax. In the wake of this battle, American communism was born... [which advocated a revolution in America]

[However] ...Revolutionary socialism... had never suited the conditions of American life, conditions which demanded a program with a "realistic basis."

...[The radicals caused the Red Scare, in which massive raids were launched by the authorities on revolutionaries]... The effects of the Red Scare on the communist movement were' nothing short of cataclysmic. Nationally, membershipship in the two communist parties decreased from an estimated 70,000 in 1919 to 16,000 in 1920...

...In 1933, the [Socialist-inspired labor union].ILGWU, along with many other formerly left-wing unions joined the mainstream of American political life by jumping on the New Deal bandwagon. These unions viewed the NRA both as a means of withstanding the depression and as an opportunity to recoup the losses they had suffered as a result of their struggle with the communists. To be sure, the NRA did enable the vast majority of these labor organizations to expand at phenomenal rates...

...There was, however, a price. In the pl:ocess.of ·endorsing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the ILGWU ceased to be a radical oppositional force, with deep links to socialist politics and ideology...

Conclusion 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... Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?

...[America's] societal traits... a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy [prosperity]... prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism...

...Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism... 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.

...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.

State Run Media Ignores Truth in RNC Criticism of Elena Kagan

Justice Thurgood Marshall gave a speech during the year that marked the bicentennial of the Constitution. He claimed that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was "defective"; only after 200 years had the nation "attain[ed] the system of constitutional government, and its respect for... individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today."

Elena Kagan used the same phrase "as originally drafted and conceived, was defective", in a college thesis.

Marshall was referring to slavery.  And as an activist judge, was wrong about the Constitution being defective.

Northerners favored eliminating slavery, but realized we had no hope of defeating the British without the South.  The South wanted to count slaves as population to increase Southern representation in the new American government.  The North wanted slaves not be counted, since the slaves would not be represented in the new government.

The compromise of 3/5ths of a man was actually a first step in eliminating slavery.  Secondly, the amendment process allowed for changes like the 14th amendment.  Had the Democrats not fought against the rights of blacks up through the mid-60's, more changes would have happened sooner.

Therefore, Marshall was wrong.  Had he actually understood history, he's have realized that the Constitution was well drafted and conceived.  It was crafted with the knowledge that the founders did not know everything and could be amended.  Further, it made one step toward actually eliminating slavery.

This is what the RNC means, and they are right.  Unfortunately, liberals and the state run media refuse to get it.  They also refuse to explore the truth.  Perhaps, because our educational system doesn't teach it.

Obama described Kagan as a woman who will represent “everyday people” and “ordinary citizens.” Kagan repeated the meme in her brief comments.  Lock step Alinskyites.

She's a lightweight.  She's a leftist.  She's a "living and breathing" type.  There's no way on God's green earth she's anywhere close to a moderate.  She'll endorse Obama's leftist agenda.  This is why she was nominated. Stevens was a schmuck.  She'll be the same should she be nominated.

I have only one question for her confirmation hearing:  Is Obamacare Constitutional?  For those of you slow on the uptake, the answer is no.  There are so many reasons as to why.
 
If she ducks or says yes, dump her.

Supreme Court Nominee Kagan and Obama Cut from Same Socialist Cloth

Obama and supreme court nominee Elena Kagan, are tied together in socialist ideology and the Chicago machine.

From NBC Chicago:

The current Solicitor General and soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice tried her best to woo Obama to a life in academia when the two worked at the University of Chicago, according to MSNBC's First Read.

Kagan joined the staff there in 1991 and won tenure in 1995. Obama was a part-time lecturer there between 1992 and 2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate, but according to reports she tried to convince him to pursue a tenure track.

Obama and Kagan share a deep Chicago connection. They both learned the ropes on the South Side, and rumor is they're both rabid White Sox fans, according to the Sun-Times.

Kagan clerked for legendary Chicago federal Appellate Judge Abner Mikva, who is one of Obama’s political mentors. She went on to have a brilliant scholarly career.

Kagan laid the groundwork for many of her political beliefs while at the University of Chicago, and perhaps provided fodder for Republicans to interrogate her.

Before winning tenure at the University of Chicago she published Confirmation Messes, Old and New a review of a book about the judicial confirmation process.

Kagan lamented the lack of "seriousness and substance" in confirmation hearings for Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce," she wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review in 1995.

Her college thesis suggest a socialist's in sheep's clothing:

Kagan spent her senior year conducting research for her thesis on the history of the socialist movement, which was titled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900–1933.” Her thesis has been criticized by her opponents for revealing sympathies with the Socialist Party and became a source of controversy when she was a potential nominee for Associate Justice David Souter’s seat on the Supreme Court last spring — a position which instead went to Sonia Sotomayor ’76 — and when she was nominated for her current position of solicitor general in January 2009.

“Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” she wrote in her thesis. “Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.”

She called the story of the socialist movement’s demise “a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America … In unity lies their only hope.”

 Sounds a lot like our community organizer in chief.  Eh?

Los Suns son estúpidos

Turns out Los Suns are in fact showing support for illegals.

 The National Basketball Players Association said in a statement yesterday that the Arizona immigration law is “disappointing and disturbing” and called for its repeal or modification. The players’ union also praised the Suns.

“We applaud the actions of Phoenix Suns players and management and join them in taking a stand against the misguided efforts of Arizona lawmakers,” said the statement by NBPA Executive Director Billy Hunter.

Los Suns point guard Steve Nash (a Canadian), "I'm against it. I think that this is a bill that really damages our civil liberties. I think it opens up the potential for racial profiling and racism. I think it's a bad precedent to set for our young people. I think it represents our state poorly in the eyes of the nation and the world... Hopefully it will change a lot in the coming weeks."

Says a man from a country that censors speech.     Isn't sweet that a rich athlete who probably lives in a gated community with security can feel the pain of illegals, but not the need to protect the citizens who pay his salary. Dope.

Fun Facts About Natural Oil Spills

What the tree hugging eco-nazis fail to mention about big bad oil is that nature spills more per year than any man caused spill.  Right now, liberals have their panties in a bunch over the BP accident.  Perhaps they should pull their panties out out their cracks and chill out.  The gulf will recover quickly as nature does.  Stopping drilling is just spin to pacify stupid leftists.

Imagine if the White House had done its job from day one.  We may have contained most of this oil from reaching coast line.  Unfortunately, Obama was preoccupied demonizing Wall Street and Arizonans for over a week. 

A study by researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) is the first to quantify the amount of oil residue in seafloor sediments that result from natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, California.

The study shows the oil content of sediments is highest closest to the seeps and tails off with distance, creating an oil fallout shadow. It estimates the amount of oil in the sediments down current from the seeps to be the equivalent of approximately 8-80 Exxon Valdez oil spills.

NASA scientists find that tons of oil seep into the Gulf of Mexico each year. Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year, according to a new study that will be presented January 27 at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.

But the oil isn't destroying habitats or wiping out ocean life. The ooze is a natural phenomena that's been going on for many thousands of years, according to Roger Mitchell, Vice President of Program Development at the Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) in Rockville Md. "The wildlife have adapted and evolved and have no problem dealing with the oil," he said. 

Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran

This is too important.  I am re-posting in full.  More ineptitude from Obama.

By John Bolton
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wall Street Journal

Negotiations grind on toward a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran's nuclear weapons program, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. Sanctions advocates acknowledge that the Security Council's ultimate product will do no more than marginally impede Iran's progress.

In Congress, sanctions legislation also creaks along, but that too is simply going through the motions. Russia and China have already rejected key proposals to restrict Iran's access to international financial markets and choke off its importation of refined petroleum products, which domestically are in short supply. Any new U.S. legislation will be ignored and evaded, thus rendering it largely symbolic. Even so, President Obama has opposed the legislation, arguing that unilateral U.S. action could derail his Security Council efforts.

The further pursuit of sanctions is tantamount to doing nothing. Advocating such policies only benefits Iran by providing it cover for continued progress toward its nuclear objective. It creates the comforting illusion of "doing something." Just as "diplomacy" previously afforded Iran the time and legitimacy it needed, sanctions talk now does the same.

Speculating about regime change stopping Iran's nuclear program in time is also a distraction. The Islamic Revolution's iron fist, and willingness to use it against dissenters (who are currently in disarray), means we cannot know whether or when the regime may fall. Long-term efforts at regime change, desirable as they are, will not soon enough prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons with the ensuing risk of further regional proliferation.

We therefore face a stark, unattractive reality. There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran's nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.

There is no possibility the Obama administration will use force, despite its confused and ever-changing formulation about the military option always being "on the table." That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran—thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.

It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.

President Obama's likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.

Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran's nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union's. Iran's theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.

Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.

We should recognize that an Israeli use of military force would be neither precipitate nor disproportionate, but only a last resort in anticipatory self-defense. Arab governments already understand that logic and largely share it themselves. Such a strike would advance both Israel's and America's security interests, and also those of the Arab states.

Nonetheless, the intellectual case for that strike must be better understood in advance by the American public and Congress in order to ensure a sympathetic reaction by Washington. Absent Israeli action, no one should base their future plans on anything except coping with a nuclear Iran.


Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).