21. July 2010 by ReaganBrat.

Elena Kagan is not honest.

Elena Kagan is a progressive liberal. 

Elena Kagan will not defend the Constitution of the United States.

President Obama selected a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States who is unqualified to serve on the highest court in our land.  Because Elena Kagan is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the Senate has an obligation to prevent the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Democrats in the Senate will not take their role to advise and consent Supreme Court Justices seriously.  Republican Senators have an obligation to filibuster Elena Kagan to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

Miss Kagan is not honest.  On numerous occasions during her career and during senate confirmation hearings, Miss Kagan has failed to speak the truth.  In a single day when asked if she would consider herself as open-minded or a “legal progressive” she stated, “I honestly don’t know what that label means”.  However, later that day during the same hearing Miss Kagan described herself by stating, “my political views are generally progressive”.  Miss Kagan told two separate contradictory stories during her confirmation hearing.  Miss Kagan is not telling the truth.  As most progressives Miss Kagan is trying to conceal her counter-American progressive views in order to obtain a position of power.  America cannot afford more deceptive progressives obtaining positions of power.  

Progressives cannot fulfill an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  They do not believe in the Constitution, nor do they seek to uphold the Constitution.  Progressives are hostile or opposed to the American ideal.  They subscribe to a philosophy that permits the dismissal of the Constitution.  Contrary to the authors of the Constitution, contrary to the intent of the adopters of the Constitution, contrary to the American politic and contrary to the actual words of the Constitution progressives believe the law of the Constitution can be changed without changing the Constitution.  In contravention of the Constitution, progressives change the legal affect of the Constitution without altering or amending the Constitution.  Progressives adopt a counter-American, counter-representative legal framework in violation of our most fundamental laws including the Constitution and unlawfully apply it to our Constitution claiming the Constitution is a “living document”.  As a “living document” progressives seek to alter the legal affect of the Constitution without altering the Constitution.  Progressives believe their “intellectual superiority” empowers them to change the meaning of the Constitution to update the law to remain current with their view of changing moral codes and mores.  They believe the text of the Constitution is no longer relevant.  The Constitution is not only our nation’s legal framework.  The Constitution establishes our union of states and the authority of our federal government to act on behalf of the people.  Article V of the Constitution explicitly provides the only methods by which that document shall be amended.  No where does the Constitution permit amendment by the Supreme Court, regardless if they claim “intellectual superiority”.  Federal agents cannot fulfill any oath nor act legally under the Constitution when they alter that fundamental agreement among the states without the consent of the states or the people.  Progressive Elana Kagan cannot fulfill a Constitutional oath, because her count-American philosophy prohibits protecting the Constitution. 

In addition to the above mentioned disqualifying flaws, Miss Kagan demonstrates disturbing opinions.  While at Harvard she banned the military from her campus.  As Solicitor General Miss Kagan argued that the government could ban books and political pamphlets.  During Senate hearings, Miss Kagan refused to say the government could not tell people what they could eat.  Miss Kagan’s dishonest, self-proclaimed progressive counter-American philosophy, and inability to protect the written Constitution, mandate prohibition of her appointment to the Supreme Court. 

Posted in General Comments | No Comments »

10. July 2010 by ReaganBrat.

US Intelligence recently caught 10 Russian spies actively spying undercover in the US.  Less than one week after capture there is talk of releasing those 10 spies in exchange for 4 westerners being held by Russia.  Suddenly “justice” is swift when you are a spy. 

Who is being duped?  Barack Obama?  The American People? 

And by who?  Russia?  Barack Obama? 

Such a quick escape…er release of 10 Russian spies logically goes beyond preventing a proper interrogation.  A quick release strongly protects Russia in direct contravention to the USA’s best interests.  Premature releasal of these Russian spies will compromise US national security.  Prior to releasing these spies it is critical to determine their release will not bring irreparable harm to America. 

Before these spies are released national security mandates a proper interrogation.  America must learn everything possible from these spies before we return them to our enemies.  Once these spies are released our enemies will be free to extract all the information these spies collected.  We do not know the extent of the knowledge they possess.  We do not know the harm their possession of such information can bring.  Before we release these spies we must know everything they know or be certain they can bring us no harm. 

Our national security is at stake.  If these spies learned our airport security, they could crash planes into buildings.  If these spies learned our power grid, they could knock out power across this nation.  If these spies learned our food distribution, they could poison our food supply killing millions.  If these spies studied our security procedures, they could target attacks where they detect vulnerabilities killing tens of millions.  How many Americans could those spies murder?  What do these spies know?

Before these spies are released national security mandates a thorough investigation.  Simply questioning these spies is negligent.  A thorough investigation is desperately needed.  We already know one additional spy exists and has evaded capture.  We must make certain the entire network of spies has been brought down.  We must investigate any of these spies’ contacts.  We must thoroughly review anywhere they have gone.  We must make sure they have not deposited a mountain of data that they are waiting to retrieve. 

We must make sure America is kept safe.  Perhaps one of these spies has dropped off a package, but only needs to tell their contact where to retrieve it.  Perhaps one of these spies uploaded classified military files to a secret web server and is waiting to return to mother Russia to type in the location.  We must make sure they are not waiting to tell the twelfth spy where the detonator for a nuclear bomb hiding in a US city is located.  We must make sure all 10 spies are not in the middle of any such plots or worse.  Prematurely releasing these spies will ensure nothing related to our security. 

Not only should we know what these spies know and the extent of their spy network, we must know what their knowledge is worth, especially to our enemies.  We must know what they were planning. 

I don’t want to question President Obama’s motives or intelligence, but perhaps we should question both. 

Mr. Obama, what is your motive to so quickly return spies to the people who sent them to spy against us?

Mr. Obama, is your decision to quickly return these spies an intelligent decision? 

Mr. Obama, you have very serious questions to answer. 

Trading 4 fully interrogated westerners in exchange for 10 Russian spies we have not had a week to question stinks.  We have yet to find the 11th spy, so we cannot possibly know all these spies know.

What will we get if we catch the 11th spy?  Is there a 12th spy?

Someone is getting duped.

Posted in General Comments | No Comments »