Filibuster Kagan Now
By Floyd Brown
Finally, some Senate Republicans are talking as if a filibuster of Barack Obama’s radical nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is “possible.” And after monitoring this week’s testimony we conclude they are justified if they proceed.
Kagan is outside the mainstream of American judicial thought and she is inexperienced as a judge. The stakes are simply too high and the damage that could be caused — for years to come — should she be confirmed, are simply too great.
Consider this: Elena Kagan is a radical. Barack Obama and his allies in the left-wing media have made every attempt to paint Kagan as a “moderate,” but this truth is evident if you listen to her answers. She has a life-long history of extreme and radical left-wing political activism and her personal history clearly indicates that she will not hesitate to pursue Obama’s far-left wing agenda from the bench.
The Washington Times perhaps stated it best. In an editorial, the Times writes that Kagan “is too political, too leftist, too inexperienced and too disrespectful towards existing law to be confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Admittedly, we don’t know much about Barack Obama’s stealth nominee to the Supreme Court. She has little courtroom experience and almost no paper trail, but, as the Times put it, “What we now know about her should disturb fair-minded Americans.”
The tides in the U.S. Senate are shifting.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier said that a filibuster of Kagan was “highly unlikely.” But now he has flipped, and said that a filibuster of Kagan is “possible.” The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, told CBS News that a filibuster is “not off the table” and that it is “conceivable.”
Clearly Kagan is a Socialist who is hostile toward freedom of enterprise.
In her 129-page Princeton thesis, which draws on Nazi supporter Werner Sombart, Kagan practically weeps over the demise of Socialism in the United States. The following passage from her conclusion sums it all up: “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. … 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?”
A “golden past”? “Socialism’s greatness”? This unbridled passion for Socialism is arguably enough to disqualify her from sitting on our nation’s High Court, but we’re just scratching the surface when it comes to Barack Obama’s mystery nominee.
Kagan may actually believe that our First Amendment rights come from the federal government. In her view, they are not innate and are not God-given, and the government does us a “favor” when it allows us to speak out because the government has the right to censor speech.
According to the aforementioned Washington Times editorial, “Kagan argued before the Supreme Court that the law should be read to allow the government to prohibit the publication of political pamphlets.”
It’s no secret that Kagan banned military recruiters while she was the Dean of the Harvard Law School and, in doing so, slapped our brave men and women in uniform in the face during a time of war because she objected to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. What many DON’T know is that Kagan acted alone and that her actions were a direct and blatant VIOLATION of United States law.
According to The Family Research Council: “[N]ot only was Elena Kagan key in kicking military recruiters off campus, directly violating U.S. law, she did so more or less independently – not even consulting the dean of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers. The law she violated was the Solomon amendment that insists that if your university accepts federal funds it should also accept military recruiters. She called the current policy of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ which was created by her future boss President Bill Clinton and supported by the Democratic Congress at the time, ‘a moral injustice of the first order.’ She was so outraged that she did not work with the Pentagon to find a solution, instead leaving that work to others, which was fine to Military leaders at the time who found her hostility to them prevalent. If Ms. Kagan has such disdain for passed legislation she disagrees with that she is willing to violate the law instead of seeking a solution, does she really have the temperament to have a permanent seat on the U.S. Supreme Court?”
Of course, the foregoing should not be shocking when one considers Kagan’s admiration for judges who legislate from the bench as she has detailed in these confirmation hearings.
Republicans must filibuster the Kagan nomination to protect our precious U.S. Constitution.
When President Obama’s vast new regulatory state is completed, Wall Street firms ought to have a competition over the naming rights. Will it be the CitiDeal? The Goldman Society? The UBS/JP Morgan Joint Initiative for the Establishment of a Social Democracy?
Goldman Sachs CEO & COO who supported Obama in 2008
The Democratic majority was bought and paid for by Wall Street and corporate money. The Masters of the Universe helped give us the Masters of the Beltway, in a synergistic exercise that would have dumbfounded even Lenin. When he famously said capitalists would sell the rope to hang them with, he was at least talking of a commercial transaction — not maxing out to a campaign committee.
Back in 2006, Democrats began a hard sell on Wall Street led by Sen. Chuck Schumer and then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff. The basic pitch was that Democrats were taking Congress, and the financial world should get on board — surely delivered with all the bare-knuckled subtlety for which those two are justly renowned.
Democrats beat Republicans in the Wall Street money chase in 2006, and kept on going. In the 2008 election cycle, Democrats garnered 73 percent of the political donations of Goldman Sachs, as well as the majority of donations from other financial giants such as UBS and Citigroup. They soaked up most of the hedge-fund money, and won the battle for donations from industries as varied as health care, defense and law.
Read More: Rich Lowry, New York Post
Tags: Barack Obama, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Socialism, Wall StreetObama’s Supreme Problem
One detail was missing from President Obama’s list of qualifications for his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court: Any mention of the Constitution.
He just doesn’t get it.
At a time when Americans are furious over Obama’s headlong plunge into socialism, when his Democrat party is losing elections and hemorrhaging incumbents because voters reject their big-government "remaking America" agenda, the chameleon forgot to adapt.
Barack Obama doesn’t seem to care about the Constitution
The master wordsmith — who knows how to say what people want to hear — blew it.
He didn’t state the main qualification for any person who serves in government, the absence of which has lit a brushfire of discontent, fidelity to the Constitution.
He and his allies haven’t taken that first step to recovery — acknowledging their problem. It’s their utter disregard for the Constitution that is causing this big mess. The concept of a limited government, restrained in what it can and should do, is foreign to them, while for most Americans it’s in our DNA. This is what puts Obama at odds with so many Americans.
Read More:By Wendy Wright, American Spectator
Tags: Constitution, Obama, SocialismA New Ism?
Syndicated radio talk show host and author Michael Medved, has an annoying habit of repeating, ad nauseam, that President Obama is not a socialist. Of course Mr. Medved is entitled to his opinion. However, it begs the question, if the President is not a socialist, ideologically, what is he?
It is obvious Mr. Medved sees his position as something of a high road approach. I see it as cowardice. It seems, to me at least, that Medved fears being seen as an extremist more than he loves the truth.
If Obama is not a socialist, what is he?
Is Mr. Obama a Pinko? A pinko” is defined in my gigantic unabridged Webster’s as; a person who holds leftist views. Well, what does “leftist views” mean Mr. Webster, oh great Shahu of words and denotations?
Left: “The part of a legislative assembly, situated on the left side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more radical and socialistic views than the rest of the members,”
Wikipedia says: “Pinko is a derogatory term for a person regarded as sympathetic to communism, though not necessarily a Communist Party member.”
Read More: By Digital Publius
Tags: Barack Obama, Communism, Pinko, SocialismCertain robust public perceptions about President Obama have surfaced among average citizens rather than so-called “wingnuts” and “lunatic fringe.”
A Harris Poll released Wednesday found that 40 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama is a socialist, a third think he’s a Muslim, a quarter think he was not even born in the U.S., is not eligible to be president and is a “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of.”

The pollster asked provocative questions indeed, with equally provocative findings.
Among other things, the poll also found that three-out-of-10 Americans think Mr. Obama “wants to turn over the sovereignty of the U.S. to a one-world government.” About an equal number – 29 percent – said he had “done many things that are unconstitutional” while 27 percent said “he resents America’s heritage.”
Between 20 percent and 23 percent said Mr. Obama is “a racist,” “anti-American” and “is doing many of the things that Hitler did.” Fourteen percent went so far as to agree that Mr. Obama “may be the anti-Christ” while 13 percent said “he wants the terrorists to win.”
Read More: By Jennifer Harper, Newsmax
Tags: Barack Obama, Healthcare, Poll numbers, SocialismNationalized health care is the progressives’ Golden Fleece. It is their obsession, the ultimate prize that was denied to previous administrations but is closer than it ever has been. As the ability of government to take over the health care system draws tantalizingly near, the president and leaders of the majority party have become infected with a kind of mania. President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders seem determined to ram through a severely flawed piece of legislation by any means necessary, heedless of the desires of the American people or the negative impact on the system they mistakenly say needs to be saved.
Obama is obsessed with remaking the Healthcare Industry
A large majority of Americans are satisfied with their current health care plans, though most also think the system could be improved. Yet proponents of the Democrats’ radical health care overhaul brazenly claim the system is irretrievably broken and only radical surgery will save it. According to the latest Gallup poll numbers, less than a fifth of even those who favor health reform agree with that position. The majority of Americans are divided between those who want a scaled-back health care measure and those who want the current project dropped entirely. If any system is broken, it is the legislative process.
Long-time Democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen warned last week that “the battle for public opinion has been lost” on heath care. Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. If the bill fails, they suffer a defeat. But if they win, they also lose because Democrats “will face a far greater calamitous reaction” in November. “Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes,” they caution.
But the glittering prize is too near for such sage counsel. The liberal leadership is infused with a sense of mission. They are the midwives to history, shepherding landmark legislation that will revise the American social contract and usher in a new era, or some such foolishness. All they need to do is pass the bill, and the poor, frightened, deluded American people will see the wisdom of their decisions. Hence House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s memorable (and revealing) comment, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” In her imagination, once the bill is signed, voters won’t remember the struggle, just the glow of the accomplishment. Rip off the bandage; you’ll feel better after the sting.
Read More: Washington Times
Tags: Barack Obama, Healthcare, Nationalization, SocialismWhy Do We Fear Calling Obama a Socialist?
I am honestly confused. Why is it not permissible for us to call President Obama a socialist? Why do so many with a media platform dodge the question when asked point-blank if Obama is a socialist?
While obviously expected from those in the mainstream media who look upon Obama as an oracle, it’s disappointing and disingenuous when Republican “leaders” refuse to describe the president as a socialist.
If the Shoe fits….
Maybe some in the GOP and the mainstream media simply don’t know or understand the definition. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “socialism” as: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
Even with the broadest of interpretations, Obama’s beliefs seem to fall within that definition.
The reason the president recoils from the words “socialist” and “ideologue” is the same reason certain Republican politicians refuse to define him by those names: Political self-interest and survival. It’s the same reason the far-left duplicitously runs from the word “liberal” and now substitutes “progressive.”
Read More: by Douglas MacKinnon, Townhall
Tags: Barack Obama, Radical Agenda, Socialism, SocialistObama’s gambling problem
Last night, great expectations were abound. With his job approval in free fall and congressional supermajority now belonging to the ages, many pundits expected the president to use the State of the Union address as an opportunity to take a "hard-pivot" to the center of the political spectrum. But rather than walking away from what has thus far been nothing but a losing table, Obama dug in his heels, ordered another vodka martini, and doubled down on radical liberalism.
Obama is still putting his chips on big government solutions working
The American people watched as he placed his usual cards on the table: cap-and-trade, health-care reform, handouts for various factions of our society, populist demagoguery, etc. Regrettably, he hasn’t learned that those cards aren’t winners, and perhaps we now have to finally admit to ourselves that our president has a problem.
Who we should have seen last night was not the gambler we’ve become accustomed to, but a realist born from the seed of the gambler. Now that he’s played those losing cards for the past year, shouldn’t have reality sunk in?
Shouldn’t he have learned that the economy won’t prosper as long as government’s intervention and further regulation confine it to a state of uncertainty?
Read More: By J.C. Arenas, American Thinker
Tags: Barack Obama, betting against the market, Gambler, SocialismVictim in Chief Barack Hussein Obama is adding to his long list of evil, greedy corporations taking advantage of millions of fellow victims in America. After targeting Big Oil and the health-insurance evildoers, the banks are now the target of his ire.
“Tell me again how you nationalized those industries?”
On Thursday, Mr. Obama made it clear he will no longer allow big banks to victimize the population. The days of their “obscene” profits and bonuses are over, and he is ready for a “fight” if they even consider opposing his new taxes and regulations.
It appears we are all victims of all these mean, greedy, nasty people who run big business in America. Mr. Obama is going to put them in their place and save us poor victims from the evil ways of big business.
The “fat cats” are now going to pay.
Forget the fact that for years Big Oil has made billions of gallons of gasoline available at thousands of gas stations throughout America, making the refueling of our vehicles much easier. Ignore the warmth in the winter and cool in the summer produced from the energy Big Oil makes available in abundance without interruption – or the ability to cook meals with the natural gas or electric Big Oil provides instead of having to make a fire in our homes. All of this apparently means nothing to Mr. Obama.
Read More: Craig R Smith, WND
Tags: Barack Obama, Hugo Chavez, Nationalizing businesses, Socialism“A lie told often enough becomes truth.” – Vladimir Lenin
President Obama’s skill as a liar is critical to his success as a Socialist.
Considering the zeal with which President Obama has in a very short time remade America, we can conclude that he will not stop until America is completely socialist. But one building block remains: government-controlled healthcare. As Lenin once said, “Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism.” To embark upon such an ambitious project that has yet failed at every attempt, President Obama must lie, since it is clear that a sizeable majority opposes his healthcare reform.

Americans are realizing that Obama has no problem lying to them
And President Obama is a most gifted liar. We’re not talking about a new Clintonian era of likeable misinformation. This is not, “I didn’t inhale.” President Clinton’s loveable way of twisting the truth pales in comparison to Obama’s brazen boldness in lying even when Obama knows he will be caught.
President Obama is a special breed of liar, employing an array of varying techniques intended to marshal public emotion in his favor. For example, he uses his own grandmother to gain sympathy for a plan that will leave millions of grandmothers without care.
Read More: By John Griffing, American Thinker
Tags: Barack Obama Lying, Deceit, Socialism

