The Obama Strategy of Kagan Nomination to SCOTUS

Tyrants often reveal what their intents and plans of action to impose tyranny and oppression upon their targets are, by writing or speaking about them well in advance.

If one wanted to know What Hitler planned to do to the Jews and to Europe , all one had to do was read his little autobiography “Mein Kampf” and listen to his speeches through the late 1920′s and early 1930′s to understand what he intended to do.  The Munich Post understood what he was up to and tried for over a decade to warn Germany what kind of a monster he was going to be.

No one listened and eventually, once Hitler secured total power for himself, went to war to control all information – and executed the editors and writers of the Munich Post in 1933.

Tyrants tend to follow similar blueprints, because they work.

Obama is a Marxist ideologue.  Much of what he has already done he wrote and spoke about in clever subtle language during his campaign and in his two “autobiographies”. Obama has surrounded himself with Marxist ideologues, Maoists, Communists and Socialists. Everything he does, is to advance his Marxist agenda of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America.

And he has already largely succeeded.

His nationalization and takeover of the banks, GM and Chrysler, Student Loans, the Health Care industry and soon energy and the Cap and Trade scheme – is all part of the game of chess he is playing to transform the nation into a Soviet-style dictatorship.

What does this have to do with the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens?

Simple.  She shares Obama’s radical ideology and will help him implement it at the Highest court level in the land.

Like all tyrants, controlling information is vital to keep and sustain a totalitarian regime, because of the lies it lives on to keep their people enslaved, fearful and desperate.  Free speech is a poison to a tyrannical regime.  It is said that one of the main tools used to collapse the Soviet Union was the Fax machine.  For the Communist Dictatorship – it was a death mechanism of their rule because the winds of free speech and ideas broke out of their iron grip.

For Obama, the Internet, Talk Radio and various mass communication networks and devices are a huge problem he seeks to control and regulate.  In his mind, technology – like speech should only be allowed if it serves the State, and disallowed if it is a risk to the State.

I find it interesting that Obama’s commencement address to graduates at Virginia’s Hampton University on Sunday – bemoaned technology and information that he felt was wasteful and not being used for proper political purposes.  In short, ultimately – what Obama was talking about, was free speech and the ability to disseminate information that he does not like and does not contain value he respects.

I think his words on Sunday to Hampton University Graduates is a window into the soul of reason why he picked Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be on the Supreme Court.

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,” Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,” in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

“All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

Of course, we can be sure that the Soviet masters thought the same thing of Fax machines and free speech in the Soviet Union.

You see, Obama does not see value in free speech unless it serves the greater values of the State.  He chides us for using technology and information to entertain ourselves, rather than use it as a political tool to further the values of the state.  Values such as Social Justice and Minority Empowerment.  Obama’s civilian security force if you will.

Which brings me back to Obama’s nomination of Kagan to SCOTUS.

The Washington Examiner reports this interesting statement signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens:

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Isn’t that peachy?  

Considering that Obama is nothing more than an academic with no practical experience – it’s elementary he would nominate another academic with little practical experience.  Because experience is not what counts in the eyes of an ideologue.  It’s the ideological agenda that matters.

And controlling information and speech by deciding the cost benefit to society versus the value the State assigns to any speech is the ultimate goal here.  I think Obama’s remarks at Hampton with the nomination of Kagen are quite revealing in what his intentions are regarding speech and information.

Notwithstanding how Kagen will vote when the various state lawsuits against ObamaCare come to SCOTUS for challenge.

I’m sure in that case, the societal costs will be deemed to outweigh the Constitution.  The smooth-as-Ken-doll Republicans in the Senate would be wise if during confirmation they asked Kagen what her view was concerning whether or not it is Constitutional for the state to demand private citizens purchase insurance they may not want in order to live without penalty.

But I’m not holding my breath for the Senate GOP to turn tables and do what the Democrats did with the Court Nominees of the previous administration. 

And this is how societies succumb to tyrants and maniacs.  They do not consider what the intentions of the tyrant are based on what they have said, what they wrote or what they do.

Untold misery and death always follow such paths.

Obama Reveals His True Dictatorial Desire and Nature

America is in the hands of a dangerous pathological narcissist who is letting the veneer of statesman slip to reveal his true nature; that of a dictator.

 

Obama’s first State of the Union speech revealed that Obama was not going to waver from his Left-tilt bent into Marxism even after the trouncing Democrats have received in the last several elections culminating in Scott Brown’s election to the seat held for decades by Ted Kennedy.  Obama proved that he truly is a pathological narcissist that is angered over his loss of popularity in the polls.  What we saw on Wednesday night was an angry petulant child lashing out at his perceived enemies while touting himself as savior by his non-achievements.  His bold-faced lies began nearly the moment he started speaking and did not let up until he got to his Mussolini-esque defiance at “I don’t quit!”.

What stood out in the speech, were two things that revealed his dictatorial nature:  his slam of the Supreme Court;  and his decree that he will issue an executive order to seat a debt commission that the Senate voted him down on.

He has spent the last year actively pitting one group of Americans against another.  After the failed Jihadist terror attack on Christmas day, he pitted one federal agency against the other to absolve himself of blame.  Last night he began to pit each branch of government against the other.

Despots do this, not presidents.

Obama’s demagoguery of the Supreme Court was unprecedented.   He first lied and misconstrued the facts of the case, which given the fact he was supposedly a Constitutional lawyer, cannot be simply chalked up to ignorance.  Obama claimed during his speech that the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC,

“opened the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections”.

He then raised the demagoguery by stating:

“Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is patently false and deliberately misleading. 

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Period.

And rightfully so.

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. 

Foreign corporations are expressly prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.” 

Of course it is now major news that Justice Samuel Alito dared to defy the wannabe-king by mouthing the words ‘That’s not true” while shaking his head.  

In true Pravda fashion, the State-run  sycophantic media lapdogs of Obama – instead of checking into WHY Justice Alito would be shaking his head at Obama’s remarks, attacked Justice Alito for daring to disagree with Der Fuhrer.  Shaking your head, yelling “You lie!” or refusing to stand and applaud Obama is grounds for complaint from both the White House and his media.  In nations that have already gone down the path Obama is taking us – such insolence is met with a gunshot to the head, followed by burial in a mass grave.

The bashing of this decision by SCOTUS demonstrates either blithering ignorance or willful loathing of the law.  I’m going to assume the latter given Obama’s tenure as a Constitutional lawyer.  He then went on and directed Congress to circumvent the Court’s decision in the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commision decision and “right that wrong”.

Such is hubris of a kind not seen in the Oval Office.

But Obama did not stop there in revealing his true self.

He then chided the U.S. Senate for blocking his proposal to create a ‘debt reduction commission’.  Because of their blocking, Obama will simply create the commission by decree.

“Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans” 

Because HE refuses.  The Monarch refuses to allow the pesky Separation of Powers and the Constitution to get in his way of destroying the country.  With such open and deliberate defiance, one has to wonder that if his Health Care Takeover plan meets a similar fate in the Senate – will he will do the same thing – and simply enact his desires by decree?

This is what tinpot Marxist dictators like Hugo Chavez do.

We are in mortal danger here as Obama lets the veil slip – and we see the dragon’s skin underneath his thin veneer of coolness.

Mark Alexander notes that it is Obama Versus the Constitution and Ben Shapiro points out the media’s blame Alito strategy.

Obama: Constitutional Rights For Bin Laden.

 

 

Obama Says Terrorists Have Habeas Rights

The Anointed One hands down another pronouncement to the contemptible ignoramuses known as the American public “these people.”

From an outraged (that anyone could doubt this) Washington Post:

Obama to Palin: ‘Don’t Mock the Constitution’

By Peter Slevin

FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich. — Sen. Barack Obama delivered an impassioned defense of the Constitution and the rights of terrorism suspects tonight, striking back at one of the biggest applause lines in Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech to the GOP convention.

It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: “Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”

Obama had a few problems with that.

“First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ‘em,” Obama said here, drawing laughs from 1,500 supporters in a high school gymnasium. “They should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later.”

If the plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks are in the government’s sights, Obama went on, they should be targeted and killed.

“My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out,” Obama said. “Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”

But Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus.

Calling it “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” he said the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’”

The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, “because we don’t always have the right person.”

“We don’t always catch the right person,” he said. “We may think it’s Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it’s Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president.”

Obama turned back to Palin’s comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.

“The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting,” Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. “Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years.”

He finished with a dismissive comment about his opponents.

“These people.”

Remember, Mr. Obama “taught” rights, race, gender and class envy warfare at the University Of Chicago.

Any knowledge he would have of the intentions of the founding fathers or the Constitution itself is accidental. And his ignorance of our country’s history is palpable.

The founders themselves fought wars. They captured enemy combatants. They did not give their prisoners Constitutional rights and court trials.

If President Jefferson didn’t try Barbary Pirates (Muslim terrorists) in US civilian courts, why should we?

But Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus.

This sentence alone should be enough to disqualify Mr. Obama from being considered a serious person by any rational observer.

This is dangerous, wilful ignorance.

From a man who clearly intends to destroy our country.

***

Well Roman from Townhall.com had these thoughts about this latest attempt by The One to pop a hole in the Palin Popularity balloon:

 

 

 

TERRORISTS AND RIGHTS

Andrew Roman

 

Kettle meet pot.

Senator Barrack Obama is talking constitutionality – which sends the short hairs on the back of my neck to attention and awakens the restless butterflies in my gut. He launched an attack against Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her position on the so-called rights of terrorist suspects, referencing Palin’s comments in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last week. She said (referring to Senator Obama):

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?

Obama’s response:

First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ‘em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”

Obama sees himself as defending the Constitution as he goes after Governor Palin, supporting the issuance of rights to terrorist suspects because, as he puts is, “we don’t always have the right person.”  

Hold on a moment. 

Is Senator Obama then assuming here that Osama bin Ladin is a terrorist? What criteria is he using to make that determination? How can he reach that conclusion without affording bin Ladin fair representation as outlined in the Constitution? How could he want to “take out” bin Ladin without granting him his Constituional rights?

And if I am being obtuse here, then allow to me ask the question the other way. Wasn’t Sadam Hussein a terrorist? Or, at the very least, the leader of a state that sponsored terrorists? Didn’t we “take him out?”

 

So, where’s the problem?

 

Of course, it would have been interesting for someone to point out that Senator Obama supported the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which is unconstitutional.  

Nice to meet you, Mr. Kettle.  

 

Bush Administration Pursues “Reasonable” Ban on Guns

I’ve had the pleasure to meet Larry Pratt at a Restoring Our Heritage event in Evansville, and there’s no finer warrior to stand for our gun rights.

We face treason from the usual suspects, and even from among those who we might consider ‘on our side’. The Founders warned us about human nature and what happens to men when they get into positions of power. Once in power, the elite’s fear losing that power and as such – an armed populace is a threat that they will work tirelessly to eliminate. Thus the last 70 years has seen the erosion of our rights, the last secure bastion being our Second Amendment Rights that again hang in the balance of men in black robes who are unaccountable for their rulings.

Many might roll their eyes at the prospect of the Second Amendment being banned or abolished as nothing but the rantings of conspiracy theorists, but the same could have been said a decade ago over the notion of banning smoking, which has today all but become abolished and virtually criminalized. The same could have been said about private property rights – but the KELO decision by SCOTUS has relegated that right to the government. The same may hold true of the Second Amendment when the High Court rules in May on whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals or if the States can regulate and even abolish that Right.

Given the KELO decision of the Court – I’m pretty confident the Men In Black will again rule in favor of the government to strip us of our Constitutionally-protected Right under the Second Amendment.

Bush Administration Pursues “Reasonable” Ban on Guns

Leave it to the Bush Administration to put forward the argument that the Constitution permits “reasonable” infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

The Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement, of the United States is the lawyer for the Justice Department. On January 11, Clement dropped a bomb designed to destroy the Second Amendment.

The bomb was a friend of the court brief that is a marvelous work of Newspeak as described by George Orwell in his novel of a horrifying future where words mean the opposite of their original definitions.

On the one hand, the brief argues that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that predated the creation of the U.S. government by the people. On the other hand, it concludes that any and all guns can be controlled or banned if a federal court finds that to be a reasonable restriction or ban.

The brief asserts, with no proof whatsoever, that there is an “unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail . . ..” It is somewhat amazing that a brief in defense of the DC gun ban would say such a preposterous thing. It is the District of Columbia, with its gun ban, that usually has the highest murder rate of all U.S. jurisdictions. In high-gun-ownership jurisdictions such as neighboring Fairfax County, VA (with nearly twice the D.C. population), the murder rates are much lower. In Fairfax County it is more than 100 times less than the D.C. murder rate.

In some thirty pages of flip-flopping arguments, the Justice Department brief never once considered what the founders of the American republic might have meant by the phrase “shall not be infringed.” But the Clement brief did criticize the idea that the Second Amendment was a categorical prohibition on banning guns.

The opinion of the DC Court of Appeals (DCCA) overthrew the DC handgun ban (and ban-by-trigger lock of long guns) on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This categorical view of the Amendment should be sent back to the Appeals Court for another look, according to Bush’s brief. The Appeals Court should be told to look at the District’s gun ban in terms of what is “reasonable.”

Nary a thought about what the founders meant, and thus what the Second Amendment requires. The law should be “developed incrementally” according to Clement – the living Constitution assertion that has been put forth to justify legislation by judges (i.e., lawlessness).

Clement’s language is the language of tyrants throughout history. He claims for the government the right to change the meaning of the law and the Constitution on a continuing basis – on a whim. This avoids the messy business of proposing and debating constitutional amendments. It is so much tidier to have a small group of rulers emerge from behind closed doors to announce what the law is today, and what is illegal now that was legal a few minutes ago.

Clement, and most judges, have bought into an unconstitutional way of interpreting the Constitution that permits judges to consider various levels of scrutiny that are appropriate. Thus, they might decide (for reasons best known to themselves) that a higher level of scrutiny is required for interpreting a particular section of the Constitution. On the other hand, they might decide that a lesser standard of rational or reasonable scrutiny is all that is needed.

When we hear judges talk about which level of scrutiny is appropriate in a particular case, the proper translation of the legal jargon is: “How far from the meaning of the Constitution can we get away with going?”

It is worth noting that the Second Amendment was written with the level of scrutiny appropriate for interpreting it, i.e., “shall not be infringed.” That means that a discussion of the proper level of scrutiny, which is found in the Bush brief, and all other anti-gun briefs, is simply a coded discussion of the question: “What can we get away with this time?”

The Bush brief submitted by the Solicitor General was co-authored by Stephen Rubenstein, the head lawyer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Not surprisingly, the brief expresses alarm that federal gun bans, licensing requirements, registration laws, import restrictions and other unconstitutional federal laws and regulations might topple if “shall not be infringed” is the required level of scrutiny.

In the Clement-Bush brief, the phrase “shall not be infringed” is never used. That is not surprising, since the game would be over if they did. It is so hard to say gun ban or licensing requirement in the same breath with “shall not be infringed.”

D.C. v. Heller would not immediately result in such a happy situation. The case was designed to ease weak-kneed judges in a slow walk back to the Constitution. All that would happen if the decision of the DCCA were simply left standing is that DC would return to its pre-1976 law. And that law is about as bad as what one finds in New York City today. Heller does not present the judges with keeping a gun ban or erasing all the unconstitutional gun laws on the books. Of course, the Court could do that, but such an outcome would be quite surprising in view of the lowest common denominator that would be necessary for any kind of a favorable decision.

Unhappily, the Bush brief makes it more likely than not that the Second Amendment will be gutted (unconstitutionally) by the Supreme Court. No wonder Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) is seeking to get his colleagues to co-sign his letter urging Bush to pull his brief. Those wishing to so urge their Representatives can go to http://gunowners.org/a012308.htm to send an email with that request.