Gabrielle Giffords’ shooter won’t be going to trial anytime soon. I have a question for Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ). In the wake of the Tucson shooting, what are you doing about getting mentally impaired people off the street, instead of rendering citizens defenseless?

For six years, Jared Loughner exhibited increasingly bizarre behavior. His college math teacher was afraid to turn his back on Loughner to write on the board for fear he might be attacked. But what do our esteemed legislators propose? A ban on gun magazines that can hold more than ten bullets. Let me point out the ignorance of this particular “solution.” If someone is intent on maximum carnage, he can carry as many magazines of any size as he wants to acquire. An emergency reload of an empty gun by a trained shooter takes about 1.5 to 2 seconds. So much for that solution. Here’s an alternative. Have Jared Loughner and others like him (e.g., the Virginia Tech shooter) brought before a judge to determine if they are a danger to society, before they wreak havoc on society. If the same judge sitting at his trial for killing six people and injuring thirteen, had examined him when he was freely walking around scaring the hell out of dozens of people, perhaps instead of being a major national news story, it might not even have made the newspapers.

Criminals don’t pay obey the law; that’s why they are criminals. They only deal with the law after they get caught, which for the victims is too late. The laws should be about what people do, not what they own.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

We knew it was coming because the situation was so clear. Congressman Paul Ryan introduced a bold plan to deal with out of control government spending and the Democrats had no credible plan of their own. So what does one do in a case like that? Lie, smear, distort, and scare the uninformed into thinking that we should shut up and surrender our liberties to the government. But the level of the latest lies is remarkable if only because of how shameless it is.

Here is the ad in question from the Agenda Project, titled “America the Beautiful.”

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U&feature=player_embedded

The message they want you to belive is simple. Paul Ryan’s would end Medicare, period. Seniors would be pushed to their deaths by Ryan and his “friends.” This is a blatent lie. The Ryan plan says that no one over the age of 55 would see any changes to their plan. Bill O’Reilly thought the ad was so dishonest that he ran a segment on his show, The O’Reilly Factor to address it, and right from the start his guest, Sally Kohn, scoffs when O’Reilly points out that no one under 55 would see any changes, saying perhaps they should put in a disclaimer saying the woman in the wheelchair was 54. Really? Did the woman in the wheelchair look like she was 54? or 84? Kohn said it was not a distortion, it was an exaggeration.

Distort, v. 1) to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed. 2) to give false, perverted or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts

Exaggerate, v. 1) to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately

Some might call that a distinction without a difference. Either way it is not true and she claims it is harmless. She then tacks hard left and says ads during the ObamaCare debate about death panels was an exaggeration and also a lie. Not even close. It is a fact that Ryan’s plan does not affect people over 55. It is a fact that ObamaCare wanted to install a government panel that would advise doctors on treatments that took into consideration how many years of quality life a patient had remaining. The only exaggeration was that ObamaCare didn’t actually call them death panels.

O’Reilly pressed on with the ads and Ms. Kohn poo-poo’d it away, “It’s a silly ad. I’m not going to defend a silly ad.” So telling outright lies is okay as long as you are silly when you do it? She continued, “We’re having this conversation because of this ad.” What conversation? A conversation about lying and silliness? What about debating what you don’t like in the Ryan plan and what the left has that is better? No chance. The smirk on her face gives it away. She is tickled that such a bold faced lie is out there and it will affect seniors and she knows the famous line from Winston Churchill, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

The tenth rule of ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.– Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals

So is the moral argument that someone uncovered the death panels? This is like the Democratic congressional aide that told me there is no such thing as ObamaCare, because there was no legislation that offically carried that name. The left calls it end-of-life counseling, the right calls it death panels. It’s a panel, and what typically happens at the end of one’s life? Death.

But don’t take my word for it, judge Ms. Kohn’s demeanor and truthfullness for yourself.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAXXeBKOrA&feature=player_embedded

Ms. Kohn claimed that the real purpose of the “silly ad” was to get people talking. Okay, Ms. Kohn, then how about on your next public appearance you talk about this:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMJE9jBroUU

So, Sally Kohn, instead of making silly and stupid videos of grandma in the wheelchair, why not make an intelligent video like this one and make the case for your solution over Paul Ryan’s plan? Or don’t you have a case?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

You have probably seen a lot of comparisons in the main stream media trying to compare President Barack Obama to President Ronald Reagan. Try to make this comparison to a conservative and they will look at you rather oddly. Tell it to a progressive and they lap it up, because they know that President Reagan was a leader and by comparing the two men, perhaps some of that leadership will rub off on the incumbent.

Leadership springs from some deep personal convictions. It is perhaps why, leadership is not common in politics. In politics, to be relevant you have to get elected and reelected. It is hard to take a stand on principles and get people to elect you time and again. It is easier, to get along, hand out some goodies, bribe the public with the public’s money and slide back into office. If they are adroit enough perhaps the individual can do some real good in the interval between elections. But over time, they tend to get sloppy and stay in the reelection mode and forget what public service means.

One of the challenges of the Republican party today as the field assembles on the starting line for the 2012 presidential sweepstakes is the lack of a leader in the declared field. Ronald Reagan was a leader. Chris Christie is a leader. Herman Cain is a leader. Alan West is a leader. But many whose names are mentioned are more politicians than leaders, with resumes filled with compromises to get along with the opposition. Some of those who are leaders, including a number of the above, are too new to their current jobs to start looking for the next one.

But what about President Obama? Even on his signature socialist programs like health care, cap and trade, increasing taxes on the wealthy, he didn’t lead. Sure, he drove them hard to get them through, but the finished products were awful, and it was ugly right down to the final passage of the health care program because he abdicated the writing of the legislation to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

On foreign policy, he has been outmaneuvered by almost everyone. When the people rose up against the mullahs in Iran, he didn’t say a thing in support of them, preferring to coddle the dictators in charge believing they would return measure for measure. They didn’t. In Egypt he was for Mubarak, then against Mubarak, than for him, against him, such that no matter who came out on top they would have reason not to trust us as a friend or ally. In Honduras, their president tried to become a dictator along the lines of Hugo Chavez and the government would have no part of it. Did this administration side with democracy? No, they sided with Chavez, Castro and their puppets.

We are now in the midst of a budget crisis and President Obama talks but he does not lead. He says nothing about entitlements, the most toxic part of the budget, because he didn’t want to go first. Isn’t that the definition of lead? The leader goes first and the rest follow. He appointed a budget commission, spending more tax dollars in the process, as a way to slide past the November elections appearing to be doing something. When the commission finished its work, the president ignored it. When a reporter asked him about it, he complained that the media is impatient and that the commission’s work is not dead, just not now. Well when, then? President Obama is in the third year of his term. He is proposing a budget for the next fiscal year that will end a month before the next election. Is he assuming he will be returned to office to implement the commission’s work? Judge for yourself in the following video. Is this the nature of a man firmly in charge of the reins of government? Or does it bring to mind a certain man from Plains, Georgia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Il_aoTYORM

Feel inspired? Do you feel like this man has a firm grasp of the problem and a concrete plan to resolve it? Neither do I.  In 2012, we can do better.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. – Judge Roger Vinson opinion in STATE OF FLORIDA v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Perhaps the most arrogant, condescending act of Congress was the passage of ObamaCare. Opinion polls consistently counted the American public to be strongly against it. Town hall meetings during the summer before its passage were raucous and united in opposition as politicians cowered before their constituents. Many politicians who voted for the bill stopped holding town hall meetings, choosing instead to hide under their desks. During the fall 2010 elections, rare was the Democrat who boldly campaigned on ObamaCare.

But that did not stop Nancy Pelosi.

 We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed …– Nancy Pelosi

The electorate be damned. Nancy Pelosi makes King George III sound reasonable. In Massachusetts Scott Brown won the special election to succeed Ted Kennedy, specifically running against ObamaCare. That didn’t seem to drive home the point to the hard charging left wing Congress. They took whatever the Senate had already passed and rubber stamped it in the House, because if it had to go back to the Senate, with the new Senator Brown sworn in, it would not pass.

Judge Roger Vinson, in his thorough analysis and opinion, gave a split decision. On the point that the changes in Medicaid were harmful to the states and coercive, because the cost of opting out would be prohibitive, he found in favor of the Obama Administration. States do have the right to opt out of Medicaid, and so it is not coercive.

However, on the issue of the individual mandate that requires everyone to buy health care insurance or pay a penalty, he could not repeat the administration’s alchemy of changing inactivity into activity and throughout our country’s history the courts have only applied the Commerce Clause to activity. Therefore, he ruled, that Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to compel someone to take action and buy a product or service, if they chose not to.

He also ruled that because the individual mandate was so intertwined with the rest of the act that holding the individual mandate to be unconstitutional rendered the whole act unconstitutional. On this he made several clarifications:

• The act did not have a severability clause that would typically state that if any part of the bill is invalid, it does not invalidate the whole. Such a clause was included in the legislation at one point and later removed, which would indicate its absence was not an oversight.
• Courts are not required to invalidate a whole act, if a severability clause is not present, in fact just the opposite is the norm. Courts should try to limit the extent of a ruling. In taking this approach the court has to ask if the rest of the act can stand without the invalidated part. The court also has to rule on the intent of Congress. That is, would Congress want the rest of the act to stand without the invalidated part? On the first point, he said it would be unrealistic for a federal judge to go through a two thousand, seven hundred page bill and determine point by point, this is in, this is out, and get it right to the satisfaction of Congress. On the second point, considering that the Congress had included the severability clause early on and later removed it, indicated that the Congress wanted an “all or none” ruling.

 Therefore Judge Vinson, invalidated the entire act.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth to begin, if it hasn’t already, from the main stream media. This will go on to the Supreme Court, without a doubt. But for now, let’s breath in the fresh air of liberty for another day.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly.”  – President Obama commenting on a police incident in Cambridge, Mass. involving Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates

“We don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions,” – President Obama speaking about Major Nidal Hasan after he killed 13 at Fort Hood.

“There is no credible evidence so far that this attack was more than at least one person, the driver,” said Mayor Mike Bloomberg. “After that there is no evidence that anyone else was involved. It may be, but we can’t say that it is.”…“If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that,” Bloomberg said. “Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg commenting on the Times Square bomber

“You know, at this point I have no information that it’s anything other than a one-off,” – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano commenting on the Times Square bomber

“The odds are quite high that this was a lone wolf.” – New York Senator Charles Schumer commenting on the Times Square bomber

“Rep. Andre Carson said he and Rep. John Lewis had racial slurs yelled at them as they left the Cannon House Office Building, with protesters chanting what he referred to as “the N-word” fifteen times.” – CBS News report on the Health Care Vote.  Andrew Breitbart put up $100,000 to anyone who came forward with video or audio proof of Carson’s accusations.  To date, no one has come forward.

If it involves a black and a white, don’t wait for facts, blame the white guy; if it involves a Muslim, not so fast.  If involves an act of violence, it’s probably because of ObamaCare and since the Tea Party opposed ObamaCare, ceteris paribus, they are responsible for the violence.

In the aftermath of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, instead of focusing on the victims and their well being, and for those killed, on their families, the left wasted no time trying, once again, to play their insipid game of Pin the Tail on the Tea Party.  But like perpetual guests on the reality show “Jackass” they seem to always end up sticking the pin in their own eye.

It is almost as if they believe if they say it first, if they say it loud, if they say it often, it will finally stick.  But as the quotes above show, they are rapidly approaching the point reached by the boy who cried wolf, where no one will believe what they say at all.

This is not about political rhetoric.  This is about a mentally ill person.  A demented person with many, many witnesses to his mental illness long before he pointed a loaded gun at nineteen people at a political meeting.  And yet our society has seemed to succumb to the left’s version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Don’t blame the victim, they tell us, it’s not his fault.  Maybe so, but whose fault is it for not seeing something and saying something?

There were many opportunities to stop what happened before it happened.  His friends noticed his mental state deteriorating beginning in the tenth grade.  He turned from those friends and turned instead to drugs.  He had an encounter with Representative Giffords back in 2007, before the Tea Parties existed, that a friend noticed really bothered the shooter, Loughner.

[At] Mr. Loughner’s first meeting with Ms. Giffords in 2007. Mr. Loughner said he asked the lawmaker, “How do you know words mean anything?” recalled Mr. Montanaro. He said Mr. Loughner was “aggravated” when Ms. Giffords, after pausing for a couple of seconds, “responded to him in Spanish and moved on with the meeting.”

“I really can’t understand why Jared was so interested in Giffords,” Mr. Montanaro said. “I imagine it was simply because she was the most accessible.”

There is no mention of Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, or anything else setting off an otherwise normal person to start shooting people.  In looking at his background, his politics appeared to be decidedly left wing (click on links to see Tweets).

One of Loughner’s classmates in high school and community college, Caitie Parker, voided much of the baseless media speculation with a few Twitter messages Saturday afternoon. Parker, herself a liberal, said Loughner was “a really good friend,” whom she described as having been “left wing,” ”a political radical” and “quite liberal” when she knew him, although she lost touch with him after 2007 when he “became very reclusive.” Loughner was a “loner” and a “pot head,” Parker said in a Twitter colloquy with Anthony De Rosa of Reuters.

His classmates and teacher in community college were also terrified of him and feared for their lives.  At the first Walmart that Loughner went into looking to purchase ammunition, he scared the clerk so much that the clerk went in the back of the store and stalled before returning to say the store was out of ammunition.  If anyone should have had a target on them it was Loughner.  There were numerous red flags raised over  a six year period that someone who cared about this individual or cared for the public’s safety should have said something.  I am all for individual freedom and less government intrusion, but when someone sufficiently loses their grip that they are no longer rationally in control of their actions, it is time to get them the help they need.

Congressional Knee Jerk Reactions

Several Democratic members of Congress leapt into action to craft new legislation to prevent this from happening again.  Anti-gun stalwart, Carolyn McCarthy proposed legislation banning a part of the gun that was used.  One of the heroes who helped subdue Loughner, Joe Zamudio, carries a gun and because of that when he heard the shooting he ran towards the sounds of the shots rather than running for safety.  The left likes to paint gun owners as crazed fanatics.  Judge for yourself if this is fanatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmmOWL05r8

Let Cooler Heads Prevail

Now is not the time for action.  It is the time for investigation and reflection.  Let us pray for those who died and pray for the speedy recovery of those still alive.  Let the facts come out about this case and not jump to conclusions over what set him off.  For anyone to use this to promote their political agenda is despicable.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Whether you call it an iceberg or a torpedo, ObamaCare just struck something or vice versa and it doesn’t look good.  The ship is taking on water and you can hear the orchestra tuning up as they rearrange the deck chairs.

Federal Judge Henry Hudson, in Virginia, ruled that the odious provision in ObamaCare requiring all Americans to buy health care insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional.  This is the core of ObamaCare, for without it this massive expansion of government into our lives would simply not work.  He went right to the heart of the argument that opponents have been making all along. 

“Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress only discrete enumerated governmental powers.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  See U.S. Const. amend. X; Prinz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 919,117 S. Ct. 2365, 2376-77 (1997).

“On careful review, this Court must conclude that section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – specifically the Minimal Essential Coverage Provision – exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

That’s the iceberg.  The torpedo was the concept of severability.  In many contracts there is a severability clause.  That clause states that if a court finds any provision of that contract to be invalid, the invalid portion will be severed from the rest of the contract and the rest of the contract will remain valid.  ObamaCare did not include such a clause, which means that the court, in finding one part of it invalid, could find the whole kit and caboodle invalid.  No need to repeal, override an Obama veto of repeal, etc., etc.  It would be dead.

But Judge Hudson wasn’t prepared to go that far.  He knows this is not the end of the road.  This will find its way to the Supreme Court and since there are a few years to go until most of the provisions of the bill kick in, he was reluctant to take that step.

“The teachings of Free Enterprise are a direct descendent of the rule restated in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 107 S. Ct. 1476 (1987). “The standard for determining the severability of an unconstitutional provision is well established: ‘[u]nless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.’ Id. At 684, 107 S. Ct. at 1480 (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108, 96 S. Ct. 612, 677 (1976))

“In applying this standard, the Court must also consider whether the balance of the statute will function in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress in the wake of severance of the unconstitutional provision.  Alaska Airlines, 480 U.S. at 685, 107 S. Ct. at 1480. Finally, in evaluating severability, the Court must determine whether in the absence of the severed unconstitutional provision, Congress would have enacted the statute.  Id. at 685, 107 S. Ct. at 1480. Given the vagaries of the legislative process, ‘this inquiry can sometimes be ‘elusive.’’  Free Enter. Fund, 130 S. Ct. at 3161 (quoting I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 932, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 2774 (1983)).

“The final element of the analysis is difficult to apply in this case given the haste with which the final version of the 2,700 page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote.  It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to health care, without Section 1501.  Even then, the Court’s conclusions would be speculative at best.  Moreover, without the benefit of extensive expert testimony and significant supplementation of the record, this Court cannot determine what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survive independently.”

So for now, we don’t know if the torpedo hit or missed.  But we do know this.  Nancy Pelosi was right.  In words that will go down in history regarding a Congress that is broken she famously said, “We have to pass the bill, to know what is in the bill.”  There you have the Speaker of the House of Representatives fighting feverishly, using every parliamentary trick at her disposal to pass this bill, particularly after Scott Brown was elected Republican senator from Massachusetts, to pass a bill she does not understand.  Consider Judge Hudson’s words that the bill was “encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to health care,” and you can’t help but ask, what has our government come to?  What were the elected representatives who voted for this doing?  Isn’t it their job to know what they are voting for?  Isn’t that why we pay them $174,000 per year?

While the band may play on, this is a serious blow to ObamaCare.  Many Americans rose up because of this bill and got involved in politics for the first time.  That is a good thing.  Let us pray they stay involved.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The baseball season has ended.  The San Francisco Giants are the world champions for the first time since 1954 when they were the New York Giants.  The stadiums are empty and the spring training fields have not yet gotten busy.  But, fear not, the free agent season is heating up.

I’ve got a hot prospect for you.  His batting average is 0.004, but he does have a home run to his credit.  Interested?  Fantasy league or real, any attempt to sell this turkey, even during Thanksgiving would be a bust.  But when it comes to the trial of Islamic terrorist Ahmed Ghailani those are the stats turned in by Eric Holder. 

Ghailani was charged with 285 counts and the jury convicted him on one of them.  So for a batting average that is 1 for 285 or 0.004.  Holder and his backers are bragging that Ghailani is going to be sentenced to 20 years to life; the home run.  So how do you feel about having this player on your team?  Yes, his is capable of hitting a home run once every 285 times at bat, but how close was he to striking out?  Was the home run skill or dumb luck?  If you were a baseball team’s general manager, would to take a chance on him?

Such are the problems of trying terrorists in civilian court with the full rights of American citizens.  When asked if the information that could have resulted in more convictions was a result of interrogation techniques that may be considered coerced, the Holder team told the judge to assume so.  Out the door went all that evidence.

In a civilian court any number of national security issues are at risk.  A prosecutor has a choice to make, go for the conviction and reveal information that could be priceless to Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, or keep it under wraps and let the perp walk.

In a military tribunal, there is more leeway on the evidence and greater concern over protecting national security secrets.  It is well past time to stop the nonsense of trying these people in civilian court and try them in military tribunals instead.

There is one more thorny issue.  If the mighty Eric had struck out, after telling the American people that failure to gain convictions was not an option, they administration is saying they would have put Ghailani back in Guantanamo or some similar facility and held him as a prisoner of war until the end of hostilities.  If that face saving device is on the table, what is the whole point of even considering civilian trials?  Another head scratching moment brought to you by the most inexperienced administration in the history of the Republic.

We have come to expect a fight whenever a seat opens up on the Supreme Court as there are distinct battle lines between conservatives who believe the Constitution should be interpreted how it was written and liberal/progressives view it in light of what they feel it should be today.  In other words, conservatives approach the Constitution with a magnifying glass while liberal/progressives approach it with an eraser and pencil.

I happen to believe that elections have consequences and that for the most part the president should be allowed to nominate who he chooses to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and have them approved.  However, as Democrats like to point out when a Republican sits in the White House, the Senate has a Constitutional role to give advice and consent on such nominees, not just rubber stamp them, which is true enough.  Unfortunately, today the advice and consent process is almost a sham, because the nominees have learned how to keep their mouths shut and defer from answering all but the blandest questions under the cover that it may come up before them in a case on the court.  We can thank Ted Kennedy for this as he turned the advice and consent role into an opportunity to smear a nominee, Judge Robert Bork, in the most vile and mendacious way to pander to the base of the Democratic Party.  Since then, it’s been lights out on any serious probing of the thought process of nominees to our highest court.

But what about Elena Kagan?  After the Senate Judiciary panel approved her nomination along nearly party lines (Lindsey Graham – R voted in favor) most Americans (87%) believe she will be confirmed, according to Rasmussen.  However, in the same poll Americans oppose her nomination 42% to 36%.  Is she qualified to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?

One of the arguments against her is that she has never been a judge before.  That is true, but it is also true for about one-third of past Supreme Court justices.  However, among those past Supreme Court justices who were not judges, they had on average 20 years experience in the private practice of law.  Ms. Kagan has two years experience in private practice, two years.  The rest of her experience in academia or government service. 

Before her current position of Solicitor General, she had never argued a case at a trial.  She has no judicial experience, next to no private practice experience, and thanks to Ted Kennedy, she revealed as little as possible about her judicial philosophy to get confirmed.  Her key strength, according to Barack Obama, is her ability to build consensus.  I’ll give you a translation of what that really means.  Her job will be to vote with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court and use her persuasive powers on Anthony Kennedy to peel him off and generate as many 5-4 wins as possible.  President Obama does little without a purpose and his purpose is to pull the Supreme Court in the same direction as the laws he has jammed through against the will of the American people.

Despite the approval of the Judiciary committee, an effort must be mounted to reject or filibuster her approval.  How can we accept someone with so little in the way of qualifications to a lifetime appointment?  We know next to nothing about her judicial philosophy.  There are no cases on which she has written opinions that can be examined.  With regard to what she has written in the government service she simply says I was acting as an advocate for my client, and those are not necessarily my views.  Who could argue with that?  So what are her views?  We don’t know and like Nancy Pelosi claimed with the health care monstrosity, “we’ll just have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”  With a lifetime appointment, you can’t take it back later if you disagree with her eventual positions.  The track record of the “Trust me” presidency is downright frightening.

With all due respect to Elena Kagan, I don’t see how we can idly sit by and silently accept another Obama abomination of ramming through his agenda without regard for the people who elected him.  He is essentially asking us to grant a lifetime appointment that could profoundly affect our liberties, to someone who is a blank slate that we know little about. He should withdraw the nominee and submit another candidate.

His election was a major milestone in the history of the United States.  Leaving aside his political philosophy which a number of us opposed and more are seeing that philosophy more clearly now, electing the first African American to the presidency with 53% of the popular vote no less, truly shows how far our nation has come from the dark days of slavery.

Having achieved this milestone has proved a two edged sword to the progressives and statists.  By celebrating the election of Barack Obama it also signaled the defusing of the most potent weapon in their arsenal, the race card.  How can you routinely call America a racist country when we just elected an African American President of the United States?  By winning with 53% of the popular vote, more than Bill Clinton in two elections and more than Jimmy Carter, it was clear that the black vote alone could not have elected him.  It required him winning over many white voters as well.  How do you continue to justify Affirmative Action when an African American was chosen by his fellow citizens to the most powerful position on earth?  But the progressives and the statists continue to pull the trigger on this dud, particularly where the Tea Party movement is involved, without proof and without shame.

 A New Dark Chapter?

Ironically, it is the Obama administration that is practicing a new kind of racism that the mainstream media is conspiring with them to hide.

During the 2008 election, several members of the Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary uniforms and brandishing a nightstick, stood outside of a polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters by their physical presence and through verbal taunts.  The Black Panthers were caught on video tape and as this was a clear violation of the Voting Rights act, charges were filed against them.  J. Christian Adams, one of the attorneys at the Department of Justice handling the case called it the “easiest case I’ve ever had.”  The facts were clear, the video tape provided irrefutable evidence and the defendants didn’t show up in court to dispute the charges.  Because they didn’t show up, the judge issued a default judgment, meaning the Justice Department won the case and only the punishment remained.  That is, until the new leadership of the Justice Department weighed in.

 This case was originally filed in the last days of the Bush administration.  So with the victory in hand, the Justice attorneys handling the case were told to dismiss the charges and drop the case.  The reason given was that the “facts and the law don’t support the case.”  It was further ordered that these kinds of cases were “not going to happen out of the Civil Rights Division” of the DOJ.  In other words, where the plaintiff was white and the defendant was black, the Civil Rights Division of the Department would not pursue the case.  If a regional United States Attorney brought a case, the DOJ would permit it to go forward, but not from within the Civil Rights division.

The individuals who delivered this order were Loretta King and Steve Rosenbaum, political appointees.  Adams went further to say that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to a federal commission about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe.   The Justice Department denied Adams allegation:

 “It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda,” she said in a written statement.

Mere partisan politics?  Sour grapes?  You might think that until you hear from Bartle Bull, a lifelong Democrat and Civil Rights attorney who was an eye witness to the incident.  Here is an interview with Mr. Bull and Megyn Kelly of Fox News.  It is nothing less than stunning.  Interview.   He describes how one of the Black Panthers said to him and a person with him, “Now you will see what it’s like to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

The first African American president has people in his administration who will not enforce the Voting Rights Act if the person whose rights are being violated is white.  I need not point out that if  the Ku Klux Klan was standing in front of the polling place and the Justice Department dropped the case against them what the outrage would be.  But with the mainstream media merely the propaganda arm of the administration, this news is only being carried by Fox News and on the Internet.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder must answer to this outrage.  They have to tell the American people why they refuse to carry out their sworn duty and enforce the law, particularly when the case was already won and they demanded that the charges be dropped and that no new cases would originate from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.  A great moment in American history will have a stain upon it unless President Obama immediately reverses course.

Over the past eleven months, have you ever gotten a feeling that you are watching a magician, rather than a president run our country?  As any practitioner of the art of the illusionist will tell you, one of the key things is to keep the audience distracted.  Have them watch the left hand, while the right is slipping the coin into the pocket.  The Obama Administration is about to unleash their greatest trick yet, trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civil court in New York for the 9/11 attack on America.  Why?

The Greatest Show On Earth

The trial will become an absolute three ring circus, with all the world watching closely.  The liberal pundits say, “this is our chance to show the world our justice system.  We can demonstrate how civilized we are, and show the Muslim world how fair we are.”  Really?

Remember to the footage in the Muslim world immediately following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  They were dancing in the street, laughing and singing, shouting praise to Allah.  What do you think the reaction will be if Khalid Sheik Mohammed, jumps up in court and screams out, “Kill the infidels! This is a fraud meant to disguise these devil’s tricks!”  Do we let him ramble with a global audience?  Do we have the bailiffs wrestle him to the ground?  Do we put him in restraints for the rest of the trial?  Who exactly is going to show the world what?

We Have No Secrets

In a civilian trial there is a process called discovery, where the defense is told everything the prosecution plans on bringing to court, including witnesses, so that the defense has a chance to prepare their rebuttal case.  How much of the CIA’s methods and contacts are we prepared to reveal to the world and to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s allies?  Or, how much are we not going to use in order to protect that information and at the same time increase the chances that he will be acquitted?

Can Anybody Say O.J.?

Do you remember the O.J. Simpson trial?  A slam-dunk if ever there was one.  There was blood evidence, DNA evidence, means, motive, opportunity, it couldn’t get any easier.  But what happened?  Judge Lance Ito, lost control of his court room in the klieg lights of national television.  One of O.J.’s attorneys or advisors told O.J. to stop taking his arthritis medication  so his hands would swell and then the famous glove trick, abra cadabra, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  What happened after that trial?  Dancing in the streets of the black community.

The Jury Pool

Are Muslims going to be excluded from the jury pool?  If so, on what grounds and would a judge allow it?  In the O.J. case we had what was called jury nullification, where a jury handed up a verdict not based on the evidence presented, but based on a social determination.  O.J. was a symbol for all black men put on trial and all past injustices.  He was a sports hero to millions and he wasn’t going down, no matter what.  What if a someone with strong beliefs sees disrupting the outcome of the trial as the new jihad?  Don’t use suicide bombers in New York, that’s so Middle East, let’s kill them softly by getting Khalid Sheik Mohammed acquitted or a give them a hung jury.  What better way to humiliate the Great Satan.  It will be like David and Goliath all over again.

The Real Trial

Or is it really the Bush Administration that Obama wants to put on trial?  The Obama administration’s popularity is sinking link a stone.  The stimulus package was a bust.  Cap and Trade is a disaster.  Health care a debacle.  Tea Party’s are breaking out all over.  The Democrats got trounced in Virginia and New Jersey, and even New York’s 23rd is still alive as recounts have dramatically closed the gap. A show trial of the Bush Administration is just what the Obama Administration needs to keep the focus off what they are really doing.

This is a tragedy and a travesty and there should be no end to the shame heaped upon this administration if they follow through on this.