Date: 11 May et seq. 2010
To: www.Alumnishockerblackandgolds.com
Political Snippets
On 23 April I opined: “In any decision or consideration, if the issue under consideration contains its own characteristics and elements uniquely identified with the issue; are you not “profiling” the issue, by considering the characteristics?” Take the issue of judgment, for example, as it applies to selecting a Supreme Court Justice for life. We wish to, we are entitled to, and it is the duty of Senators, to search in specificity for, inter alia, the character and judgment ability we could expect from the candidate should he or she be essentially enthroned for life on the United States Supreme Court. Obama has now selected his long time fellow democrat networker, Elena Kagan, as a candidate to be the next Supreme Court Justice. The public in general knows not much about Ms. Kagan, except they tell us she is young – no age initially given, but now age 50 – ; that she hasn’t written much of anything, and what little she has written has a dedicated liberal bent; first we were advised she has recently been Obama’s political issues advisor, but later it was reported she was Clinton’s political issues advisor – whether one or both are correct is unknown by this writer; that she clerked for dedicated liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall – well a subsequent article says “She’s written ‘memos’ including some for the late Justice Thurgood Marshall that she’s since distanced herself from”, Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers, May 11, 2010; that she has been the Dean of Obama’s Supreme liberal Harvard Law School – probably mostly an administrative position and not a teaching position; that she has for less than a year been Obama’s Solicitor General; that she has never been a Judge; and may never have tried a case in any court, and has only 6 times presented oral argument before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General, AP 10 May 2010; that it now appears she has had a long history of close connection and networking with Obama; that she banned military recruiters from a Harvard campus office: “because she viewed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as violating the Harvard Law School’s anti-discrimination policy, See, Wichita Eagle, Opinion, May 11, 2010; and that Kagan adamantly opposed the military policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, as it relates to gays in the military, and filed an opposition brief as Dean of Harvard Law School in a Supreme Court case involving a law withholding government money from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus because of objections to the Pentagon’s policy on gays – The Supreme Court upheld the law unanimously, so Kagan is on record as directly opposed to the unanimous opinion of the 9 existing Justices on the Supreme Court, including Justice Stevens, AP May 10, 1210.
Given that Kagan adamantly opposed the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the military relating to gays, and given that our Senators have a duty to determine the character and judgment ability of Kagan, inter alia, it would therefore seem to be, by implication, a requirement to inquire and specifically ask the question:
“Is Ms. Kagan, in fact herself, gay.”
But the liberals will say: you can’t ask that question, because it is “profiling”. But clear reason is that whether or not one is gay, goes specifically to the issue of judgment ability, for if one can justify the decision to personally become gay, the vast majority of Americans who disagree with any such attempted justification and position, would also then question her judgment ability on any number of issues. And, even if Ms. Kagan is not gay, and is willing to give her testament under her oath that she is not, which would be acceptable:
“Upon what rationale does she justify her adamant opposition to the policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military.”
Don’t hold your breath waiting for any brave heart in the Senate to ask the clearly required questions, publicly. But the questions should be ask either in the private conversations Senators have with Kagan as she makes her rounds seeking their vote, or submitted in writing to her for her written response.
Perhaps Ms. Kagan is a test horse or straw man candidate sent up by Obama, with the intent that he expects her to fail; so that the republicans will have spent their best ammunition, and he can then blast the republicans as unmeritoriously begrudging and bigoted; and then put up his real candidate – sure to be even more of a dedicated brain dead liberal – that he wishes to infect the Supreme Court with for the next 35 or 40 years or so.
The State liberal networking news media and press are not news commentators. They are Teleprompter readers and conveyers of the liberal mental masturbation of the day. Like lemmings, when the State mental masturbation script of the day is released, the State media and press genuflect and turn on their Teleprompters and 55 gallon barrels of ink for their presses. These unpatriotic fools in derelict of their Constitutional recognized duty, will live to see their own demise, as more and more frustrated puking patriotic Americans can stand the treasonist treachery no longer, and cancel their subscriptions to the press and turn off the satellite and cable connections, and turn to the reality of conservative talk radio, a good book, or otherwise entertain themselves with an old movie. Note: not a new movie.
Obama’s jihad against the State of Arizona, its Governor Jan Brewer, its Legislature, and the Arizona Law for checking illegal invaders of Arizona, adamantly supported by the national State lemming liberal networking news media and press, continues unabated. You see, Obama, his treasonist treacherous socialist Marxist plotters, and the brain dead liberals in control of Congress, badly need the illegal invader Mexican democrat vote in November, if they are to maintain their supreme control of Congress and their socialist agenda to transform our country into some socialist Marxist utopia. The Arizona Law attempting the survival of Arizona is a stake in the heart of the libs plan to marshal 20 to 22 million illegal invader Mexican democrat votes in November, and has to be defeated at all costs. Hence Obama and his genuflecting lemming national State media and press jihad.
13 May 2010: Some 33 states and growing are joining the efforts to litigate the new Obama lack of health care power grab bill. The state of Florida has filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Florida, with 19 other states now joining, and more on the way. Now we will see whether their exists in the Constitution the power to allow Obama to require Americans to buy insurance, or anything else. If Obama has the power to tell me what to buy and how I have to spend my money, it will be time for revolution as we will have all lost our freedom. Obama and the libs can steal our money by way of taxes, and the Congress can pass legislation to provide health care services in some fashion, and pass appropriations bills to allegedly pay for same, but they can not require us to spend money and buy anything, and nothing in the Constitution so states.
Obama and the libs are in the process of another bill to spend another 200 billion we don’t have, but that they will just print, to extend unemployment benefits from 2 years, well, 199 weeks, for another full year, or 3 years total. That would push off the cut off of the government hind teat spigot, until after the November elections so that the democrats can hopefully rely upon no backlash vote from unemployment recipients, as a result of their other jihad attack on our capitalist system, economy, and jobs killing legislation.
Elena Kagan adamantly opposed the military policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, as it relates to gays in the military, and banned the military from recruiting on the Harvard Law School
campus, and just refused to follow the Law against banning military recruiters. Just like a true liberal: if you don’t like a law – or the Constitution – just ignore it and otherwise refuse to follow it. Just the kind of approach Obama needs on the Supreme Court to get his unconstitutional socialist Marxist agenda supported as Constitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the 1930's veterans cross memorial on government land was constitutional. In less than a month the welded and bolted down cross that had been in place since the 1930's was torched down and missing. We can’t live with liberal democrats. When they lose a decision to the Supreme Court, they ignore the law of the land, thumb their noses at the Supreme Court, and just tear down the cross they wanted removed by their law suit. This example, in a different context, is precisely the illegal action of Kagan in banning military recruiters, and says a lot about what we can expect if, God forbid, she it affirmed to sit on the Supreme Court.
I have never heard anyone suck up in such glowing adjectives and extended verbiage, as Elena Kagan’s public suck up speech to Obama. In some such, she alleged his beauty, his superior intelligence, his mesmerizing impact, when you hear him open his mouth and talk you just know he is telling you the truth, etc., etc., ad nauseam to the point of gaging. While it was all an absolute lie, it does exhibit and says more about Kagan’s gullibility, if she really believed what she said; or otherwise her willingness to lie to suck up to Obama in the hope of future appointment, which has now come to fruition. In either case, whether just gullible or willingness to lie to suck up for appointment, take your choice, Kagan exhibits her lack of substance and qualification for being one of 9 Supreme Court Justices. She does however in recognizing Obama gargantuan ego, thereafter exhibit her unprincipled cunningness in playing to it, for her own personal gain. But liberals are fundamentally unprincipled and just consider it networking to suck up for personal gain. How then could we expect on the Supreme Court: discretion from an ideologue; candor from a sycophant toady; or justice from a brain dead liberal Supreme Court Justice who obtained her position by unprincipled cunning artifice.
That brain dead liberal sage, Kathleen Parker, of the Washington Compost, is at it again. This time she is pretending profound concern with republican business, that is none of her business as a liberal democrat. Notwithstanding her liberal dim brain dead merit badges and undeniable standing, she offers her profound wisdom, concern, and unsolicited advice to republicans, thus:
“But in purging impure Republicans from the ranks, tea partiers ultimately may manage to further shrink the GOP by alienating those repelled by purity tests.”
Clearly, it is not the shrinking of the GOP that concerns Ms. Parker, she would like nothing better, but rather the republicans that are no longer willing to send RINO republicans to Washington for the purpose of “bipartisanship”. Our country is at stake. We want no bipartisanship with traitorous treacherous liberal dims out to remake America into some kind of alleged socialist Marxist utopia. It’s a war Parker. We don’t need or want your cunning advice. You folks on the lemming State liberal networking news media and press reservation, are no more than genuflecting conveyers of the liberal socialist administration mental masturbation of the day. Mind your own business. You can spend your time as General of the Army, instructing and advising liberal dims how to conduct their side of the war. But we intend to fully deposit you on the ash heap of political history in November without your insidious advice.
By the way, the TARP bailout was not an originating proposal by Bush. It was imposed upon Bush by liberals in the administration alleging no alternative to the international collapse of the world financial system, and was approved by Bush only after a White House meeting with Obama who strenuously argued for the TARP bailout. And then, as I remember, only about the first 300 to 400 billion was authorized for expenditure, with Obama shortly to be in office, to direct the expenditure of the rest of the some 800 billion. So don’t blame the TARP bailout entirely on Bush, as if Obama and the liberal dims had nothing to do with it. It was precisely what Obama wanted. I suppose you are entitled to plead the case on behalf of liberal dims, but you are not entitled to your own intellectually dishonest facts.
By: Fred Marrs
Subscribe