Lindsey Graham Flunked "Civics 101" In School

Either he flunked or he didn't remember his lessons very well.  The Senate is given the responsibiity to base his/her vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court using the criteria of whether or not that nominee will adhere to the United States Constitution - period.  On the internet (and this blog) is copious evidence that she will subordinate the Constitution to a progressive agenda.  Of course there is also her lack of experience in sitting on a bench.

So what does he lamely cite as justification for his vote?  The Golden Rule - read one account and watch the video therein.  For the uber-progressive who prides him/herself in their lack of knowledge of the Bible, the Rule reads, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

He never quite gets around to stating how he specifically applies the Golden Rule to his vote.  Who does he think are the "others" in this vote scenario?  I can only surmise that he believes that Kagan, and perhaps Obama, are these "others".  But let's get back to the Senator's binding duties in this case.  I propose that the "others" in this case are the American people - the citizens of this country who have a right to a Supreme Court that will adhere to the United States Constitution, and not some "living interpretation" of the same.  It is our interests that Graham tossed under the bus as he kowtowed to the "politically correct" power brokers in Congress (some of whom we hope will be retired this coming November).

Kagan: Catholic Church Can't Recruit on Campus?

It's so hard to keep up with this woman's continuous tap-dancing.  What is clear, though, is that she is having trouble disguising her anti-God, anti-Constitution, pro-socialist, progressive leanings.  When asked whether or not Harvard would have banned the Church from recruiting on campus (because women aren't eligible for the priesthood), she replied that, well, I'll let you read and watch the spectacle yourselves.

Marylanders! Take Part in Cardin's Questionnaire!

The question he's asking is, "Do you support the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court?"

To let him know what you think, go to http://www.cardin.senate.gov/.

Do so now, please - and let others know!

By the way - his seat is up for grabs in 2012.

GOP - Will They Filibuster??

Orrin Hatch of Utah really needs to snap out of it.  He is of the old RINO school in thinking that this matter of Elena Kagan is not much more than some genteel debate.  On Thursday, he eschewed the idea of a filibuster as "an unheard of, dirty thing to do".  Uh, no it isn't, Senator!  Not when you're talking of someone who is pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-First Amendment and anti- Second Amendment.   Fortunately, Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is open to the idea.  However, we need more teeth than that.

Ladies and gentlemen of the GOP, we are fighting for the soul of this nation.  We need you to roll up your sleeves, to be willing to get dirt under your fingernails, and to fight tooth and nail to keep this woman away from that Supreme Court bench.

There is some hopeful signs that they are waking up.  Hatch, to his credit, has stated that he would cast an opposing vote for her.  At least one pro-abortion senator is concerned enough about Kagan's lack of judicial experience and her activism that she will oppose Kagan (at least for now).

It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to contact our Senators to:: 1) voice opposition to Kagan, 2) urge the conservatives to filibuster her and 3) that your vote for the senator will depend on their resolve during this confirmation/opposition process.

RINOs Making Betrayal Noises in Kagan Matter

Please read this Lifenews article and take note of these Republican senators who are either: 1) pro-abortion themselves or 2) suffering from lack of backbone.  Then plan to retire these folks asap.  I don't know when they're up, but there's a 60% chance that they're either up in 2010 or 2012.

Kagan's Political Contributions

Here is a list of her various political contributions!  Before you look, though, I bet you can't guess who got $6,600.00 from her over the years!

What??  You guessed correctly??  Without peeking??!??!  You're right - it's Barack HUSSEIN Obama!  Others in the "usual gang of suspects" who were her beneficiaries are Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc.

USCCB Breaks From LCCHR

On Tuesday I reported that the Leadership Council for Civil and Human Rights, of which the USCCB was a dues-paying member, had launched a web-based intiative to lend vocal support to Elena Kagan.  Today it was made known that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has now severed ties with the chequered LCCHR.

We are pleased that they have done so - at long last.  Now if the USCCB can discard the Campaign for Human Development and sever its other shady ties, it will at least stop doing harm to the Faith.

USCCB-Affiliated Group Endorses Kagan

Deal Hudson has reported in several online Catholic news services (including the Catholic Advocate) that the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has started a project called the Coalition for Constitutional Values.  On its website is a 30-second ad that endorses Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is a dues-paying member of the LCCHR.  In remaining part of the LCCHR, the USCCB is lending support to a pro-abortion nominee to the US Supreme Court.  I would call for the USCCB to dissolve its ties with the LCCHR, but I believe they wouldn't.  They really are controlled by the same elements. 

Perhaps it's time to petition Pope Benedict XVI to proclaim the USCCB dissolved and/or invalid.

GOP = Gutless Old Poops

So what is the latest manifestation of calcium deficiency in their spinal columns now?  It has to do with how they plan to (NOT!) fight the Kagan nomination.  Lifenews reveals that John Kyl, ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee is dismissing the tactic of filibuster in the Kagan case.  Says the Senator, "The filibuster should be relegated to the extreme circumstances, and I don't think Elena Kagan represents that."

What is necessary, in their opinions, to qualify as "extreme circumstances"?  Must the nominee in question be a reincarnation of Atila the Hun, or Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin?

Ladies and gentlemen of the GOP, in case you haven't noticed, we are fighting for the soul of this country, if not civilization itself.  We certainly are fighting for the babies being slaughtered by the thousands everyday in this country.  Whether or not these seems like "extreme" statements, I defy any one of you to dispute the factual accuracy of them.  Lose the "country-club, oh-so-genteel" veneer and realize the stakes involved here.  If there is one thing you'd better learn from the Tea Party Movement, it's that the votes and support of conservatives can no longer be taken for granted; they must be earned.  With this most irresponsible statement of John Kyl's, you have done much to alienate true conservatives.  You'd better wake up and do your utmost to fight the Kagan nomination.  We won't forget this November.

Kagan's True Colors Starting to Show

Despite attempts to depict Elena Kagan as a "moderate" regarding abortion, proof of her murderous sentiments are emerging.  Lifesite News informs us that she has financially supported National Partnership for Women and Families: an outfit that proclaims its support for baby-murder on its own website.

Now aren't you glad that you have resources such as Lifesite News and, yes, this blog to put you in touch with information that the Messiah Most Miserable and his Minions Most Mindless would rather that you not have?  It's called Free Speech.  It's a God-given right.  The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that the Federal government shall not attempt to abridge that right.

In another responsible exercise of that free speech right, Wesley Pruden penned a piece in today's Washington Times (to which I now link) detailing Kagan's disdain for free speech.  Pruden reports, "It's perfectly OK, she wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review, for the government to restrict free speech as long as it means well and calls it something else."  I link to the article to which Pruden refers.  She is indeed a lawyer, as witnessed by the 105 pages in this pdf.  What difference does "governmental motive" make?  The First Amendment is clear and simple - no restrictions.  Long and short - she wants to ascribe to the governmental de-facto deities the power to define their speech - and ours!  Is this the kind of Orwellian society that we want? 

Kagan must be rejected by the Senate.

Moral Injustice of the First Order

Elena Kagan, Obama's pick to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, is very worred about a "moral injustice of the first order."    And just what hideous evil has rankled Ms. Hagan?  Why, it's the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy regarding gays within its ranks.  She was so incensed about it that she used it to ban miliary recruiters from Harvard Law School's campus (while she was dean).

One might wonder what does she think of the bestial dismembering and murder of babies that occurs in this country at least 3500 times a day?  Oh, silly me!  Of course she thinks that's just fine and dandy!  Murder of helpless children, in her eyes, is a "good"!  Do we need another of these on the Supreme Court?

Real Catholic TV on Elena Kagan

Real Catholic TV speaks out against Elena Kagan.  One thing they point out is her complete lack of judicial experience.  Frankly, I can see why the Messiah Most Miserable looks favorably upon such lack.  After all, he has no substantial experience either - just some very dangerous, crackpot ideas that suit the purposes of George Soros and other progressive "deep-pockets".  (Click here if you can't see embedded videos)

Elena Kagan - Another Disaster Looms for Supreme Court - Prayer Vigil to Combat It

President Obama has nominated U.S. Soliciter General to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.  Naturally she is pro-abortion and pro-gay "marriage".  Would the Messiah Most Miserable have nominated her if she wasn't?