New Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan
President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the newly vacant US Supreme Court Justice seat. If (when) confirmed by the Democrat-lead Congress, Kagan will succeed Justice John Paul Stevens who is retiring from service.
90 year old Stevens’ liberal voting record will be continued by this 50 year old woman. Her eventual appointment will make her the fourth female Supreme Court Justice ever and the third female justice in office right now.
The deepest concern we have with Kagan is that SHE HAS NEVER BEEN A JUDGE. No really. Ever. And Obama wants her as a justice for the highest court in our government– the branch of the government that further defines our Constitution.
And Judge Judy has more experience than Ms. Kagan does.
We won’t overlook her years at Harvard, Oxford, and Princeton. Nor will we pass over her time as the first woman Dean of Harvard Law. It’s impressive. But there certainly is something to be said for experience.
We hear she knows the law. If that’s true, it’s much appreciated. However knowing the law and interpreting the law are two very different balls of wax.
And we’re not too sure about her perception as it encompasses of the whole picture.
She attempted to prohibit military recruiters from soliciting students’ service on Harvard’s campus because she’s unhappy with the military’s recruiting practices.
What does this mean about our newest Justice? We’re not sure, but we hope she recognizes the extreme responsibility of the weight she’s about to be given.
We should be extremely careful about our choices in the Supreme Court. It’s decisions can significantly altar the everyday lives of Americans and the future of the country– and even the world. United States Presidents serve four-year terms (and up to eight years if they’re good); justices have tenure for life.
Since this 50 year old’s life will probably last a while, we pray that she does this job for the American people, not as a favor for the Democratic party.
The Change We Need Is for a Smaller, Smarter Government
Sarah Palin, while Tea-Partying, commented on the way things are going– and where they need to be going: “We need a smaller, smarter government back on the side of the people.” We do need to change. But it’s not the “Change” Obama promised that is going to pull our nation out of the slums.
“If we continue to avoid confrontation and retain the status quo of outdated, outmoded local government, it will be impossible for candidates to say ‘read my lips: no new taxes’ with any credibility,” says former Indianapolis deputy mayor, John L. Krauss, who currently directs the Indiana University Public Policy Institute.
What we need is to downsize. No more spreading out and up and around. No more stepped-up spending. We need to prune.
There are three branches to our federal government. Let’s keep those. Much of the rest of the fluff can go. That’s were all our taxes get lost. That’s what is dragging us down.
‘That government is best which governs least.’ -the reason we still read Henry David Thoreau (who was probably quoting Thomas Jefferson, advocate for small government): He was right.
When we do call for small government though, we have to recognize that smaller government means greater citizen responsibility. We have to pick up the slack let go by the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee, the Office of Personnel Management, or the Defense Contract Audit Agency among other Federal Government agencies that we probably could do without.
I don’t discount the necessity of a few federal agencies, but I’d readily submit that the need to streamline is eminent.
Curious about the various federal agencies that your tax dollars fund? Check out this list of US Federal Agencies.
Code Pink on Fox News
Check out Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink, on Fox News.
Here she responds to questions about her outrageous outburst at Karl Rove. Evans says she ‘did not disrupt the event’ by trying to handcuff the former Bush adviser. Her attempt at a citizen’s arrest has made her a laughing stock. And rightfully so.
A Democrat High in the Air
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.
She lowered altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and Replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level.. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”
She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I’m still lost.. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect ME to solve your problem. You’re in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s MY fault.”
Obamacare on the Rampage
I recognize that too few Americans have full access to health care. However, Democrats are rushing through this.
Health Care reform has the potential to become one of those federal decisions in our nation’s history that strays from American ideals (like Roosevelt’s New Deals). Many are comparing it to Roe v. Wade. The two are as similar as they are different.
Obama was looking for a bi-partisan solution to our current health care situation. Bi-partisan support is the only way to make significant alterations in federal policy like this.
Ultimately, that was just a show. Ultimately, the only bi-partisan aspect of the health care bill that made it’s way through the House this weekend was the group that voted ‘Nay’.
In contrast, every single representative on the consenting end was a Democrat. Why are Democrats so keen to sprint through something that needs careful deliberation? Read the rest of this entry »
Stay Strong, Pro-Life Dems!
According to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, he and his group of 12 pro-life House Democrats are being hounded by party leaders, the White House, and the usual Democrat supporters, as quoted in the National Review Online.
“At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve,” said Stupak. According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats — the “Stupak dozen” — has privately agreed for months to vote ‘no’ on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), unions, and others are “twisting the arms” of the 12 who have committed to stay strong in their ‘no’ vote. Stupak says the arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”
What are Democratic members saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
To read the full article visit: National Review Online
