Kagan....Gays, the Military and...Saudi Arabia?

The transcript of what he said is HERE....and includes this:
And now, information has come to light suggesting Ms. Kagan may have been even less morally principled in her approach than previously thought. Around the same time Ms. Kagan was campaigning to exclude military recruiters—citing what she saw as the evils of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell—Harvard University accepted $20 million from a member of the Saudi Royal family to establish a center for Islamic Studies in his honor. A recent Obama State Department report concerning Saudi Arabia and Islamic Shari’a law noted that:

“Under Shari’a as interpreted in [Saudi Arabia] sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is punishable by death or flogging.”

So, do you think Ms Kagan is at least slightly hypocritical? She'll keep the military out of Harvard because she feels they're not fair to gays......but she'll take Saudi money to study Islam at Harvard (oh, happy day!), whose Shari'a laws punishes gay sex with death or flogging? Think anybody'll care, or is this just more of "We don't give a damn..........we're in charge and she's in."
Thanks to Hot Air and Imp...
z

A SCOTUS judgement today...Blacks in the Fire Department

Did you see THIS article on what the Supreme Court ruled today? The suit itself is pretty benign...but the cause of the suit seems less benign to me..........

Here are the paragraphs which most caught my eye and my curiosity:

"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., who argued the case. "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test, and LDF will go the extra mile to make sure that they do not."

Anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified. But the city set a second cutoff score of 89 points.

Officials told applicants who scored below 89 but above 64 that although they passed the test, they likely would not be hired because of the large number of people who scored 89 or above. The majority of those in the top-scoring group were white; only 11 percent were black.

Only 11 percent in the top-scoring group were black so we lower the bar? Shouldn't we help those blacks do better instead of dropping the bar? If anybody raised the bar JUST to keep blacks out, they should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY, obviously! But, if this was proven, wouldn't that have happened? Does this leave cities less safe because we'll be allowing in people who aren't qualified for these important jobs? Doesn't that matter?

The actual suit is about the time people have to file a suit when they feel discrimination has happened, that's fine...........but the gist of this suit, what set off this suit, seems more important to me. Why wouldn't we just put a SET NUMBER on the testing and anybody, regardless of color, either passes or doesn't...those who don't pass, aren't hired. Or, give them a second chance with all the information review they need to learn and pass? Is that so impossible these days? Are we that far gone? If I was a black man desirous of working in the fire department, I'd demand they find the most reasonable cut-off number for the testing grade and stick to it....and, if I didn't pass, I'd study until I did. And I'd feel proud that I did, wouldn't you? I wish that for the kid in my image above, IF he chooses to become a fire fighter.

z

Elena Kagan....GAY? Do you care?

Some are rumoring that Ms Kagan, nominee and probably the next justice on the Supreme Court of these United States, is gay. Her friends are insisting she is not.
Do any of you care if she is or not, and why? I'd like to know. Please let's keep this conversation above board and honorable.........no gay bashing, that's just silly. Do you think homosexuality could affect a Justice's decisions and how?
Thanks.
z

Obama says "judges are ignoring the WILL OF CONGRESS"....is he KIDDING?

Huffington Post carried THIS STORY and it should show us just how little this president really understands about the courts system. It completely surprised me (yes, even ME) that he could say things like this, for one thing, and that nobody'd pick it up in the mainstream media or at FOX...did any of you hear he said any of this?:

The title of the linked story is "OBAMA SUPREME COURT WARNING; 'CONSERVATIVE' JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS 'WHAT YOU'RE NOW SEEING'

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, preparing to make his second nominee to the Supreme Court, warned Wednesday of a "conservative" brand of judicial activism in which the courts are often not showing appropriate deference to the decision of lawmakers.

Obama made clear that his views on judicial restraint are not the only basis he will use in choosing his next nominee for the high court, a decision expected over the next few weeks.

But his comments underscore just how much he thinks courts are being vested with too much power and are overruling legislative will, a factor that will influence his nominee choice.

Obama already has openly criticized the Supreme Court for a January ruling – one led by the court's conservative members – that allowed corporations and unions to spend freely to influence elections. Obama has vowed to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens with a like-minded justice who will not let powerful interests crowd out voices of ordinary people.

On Wednesday, when asked about judicial activism as he spoke with reporters aboard Air Force One, Obama spoke of judges who ignore the will of Congress and the democratic process, imposing judicial solutions instead of letting the political process solve problems. (Z: did he REALLY SAY THIS? WHAT?)

"In the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach," Obama said. "What you're now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error."

He said the notion of judicial restraint should apply to liberal and conservative jurists. Instead, the president said arguments over original intent and other legal theories end up giving judges a lot of power – sometimes more power than elected representatives have.

Obama said judges should presume that the laws produced by the House and Senate and state legislatures should get "some deference as long as core constitutional values are observed."

HAS HE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN THAT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION? Is anybody LISTENING TO HIM and waking up to what he's saying? Judges are supposed to pay attention to the will of congress when deciding cases? WHAT???

As for my image of the gavel and flag...it might as well be Obama's shoe ON the flag...z

ng processe

Justice Roberts, Robert Gibbs and the Party of NO?

As you all know, Obama criticized the Supreme Court with the Court having to sit there and remain quiet while the congress jumped on the Obama bandwagon cheering and applauding. One justice, Alito, couldn't restrain himself from seemingly saying "Not true" as Obama spoke but, mostly, the court had to sit and .........take it. Is this why they're there?

Justice Roberts believes they should not be at what he calls a "political pep rally" anyway...how do you feel about that?

And, is it unseemly for a president to criticize a Supreme Court ruling and then have his henchmen go on defense for him on all the talk shows? Is this a matter of the court's following THE LAW and, if the law isn't liked, we should change the law, or will our Court that's been so highly esteemed all these years go down like so many things in America because Obama didn't get his way??

Also, I wonder if you all saw Robert Gibbs on Chris Wallace's morning show Sunday morning? Wallace, at the end of the interview, showed a clip of Gibbs wearing the Canadian hockey jersey he'd promised Canada he'd wear if they won the Gold Medal.....but, instead of laughing about it and going along with the gag, Gibbs immediately said to Wallace "You would show that....you know I DID wear the American jersey right after that clip." Is he so thin skinned at a good laugh at himself or did he feel wearing the Canadian jersey exposed some unAmerican feelings? I was stunned at his reaction to what was shown as a light-hearted end to a pretty heavy interview, like Wallace so often does.

AND....I'm wondering if all of you saw the Obama thugs on the morning shows, On Chris Wallace, Meet the Press, etc., wailing about the health bill........."The Republicans got many things they wanted in the health care bill" and then, immediately ... "The Republicans don't want to cooperate." Um. Which IS IT? They all said both....oops.
z

Obama's statement about the Supreme Court and its latest decision was WRONG.........

.......if you, too, were confused about how he was wrong, READ HERE....it's also another glimpse into the liberal media.

UPDATE: I just saw THIS article critical of the Court's decision. It's informative, too, and I want to be fair and show more on the issue. Do you have any thoughts on this?

(thanks, Gail)

America Under Siege

by Morgon Orlins

If I could give my fellow Americans one bit of advice--and have it stick--it would be this:

WAKE UP !!!

Our way of life is under serious assault, right now! Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, even the simple freedom to choose your own health care with your doctor is endangered.

Let's look at the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress hasn't established a state religion, but they have helped to prohibit the "free exercise thereof" in a thousand different ways in the last 50 years. In the ridiculously named, trillion dollar "Stimulus Bill" there is a provision prohibiting the use of funds to rebuild any structure on a university campus that is used for religious worship. Nancy Pelosi inserted that particular gem!

The ACLU has been the spearhead of this attack on the free exercise of Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism. As a matter fact, the ACLU has led a relentless assault on everything we hold dear as Americans!

http://dyn.politico.com/snetwork/profile/profile_blog_view.cfm?id=1990B61B3C3682B4EC8D915765B1AC46

--or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech has been under constant assault by the left for at least twenty years now. The very concept of "hate speech" should be hateful to those who value FREE SPEECH. I've wracked my brain to come up with a meaningful definition of the term "hate speech", and I've failed. So let's try this definition:

Hate Speech--those common sense opinions which run contrary to the leftist worldview.

Democrats are engaged in a full-court press to reenact the absurdly named "Fairness Doctrine." This is an effort the shut down conservative talk radio, and it HAS worked in the past. Here's how it works...

Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity state an opinion on a political topic for 10 minutes. Then one of George Soros' toady groups, like Media Matters, calls up the local station director and DEMANDS 10 minutes of airtime to "refute" Rush's opinions. The station will be required by law to grant that 10 minutes of airtime, and people by the millions turn their radios off! If liberal opinions were interesting in the least, or even cogent, Air America would have been a SMASHING success instead of an economic train wreck. When listeners change the radio dials in those numbers, advertisers stop paying for airtime, and the show eventually fails! That's how it worked in the past, and that's EXACTLY what the leftists/Democrats intend to do now. They may change the euphmism to "Localism" or something even more absurd, but know this:

The Democrats intend to kill Conservative talk radio and the Pusch is on right now! If they truly wanted "fairness" the Fairness Doctrine would apply to TV, newspapers, and magazines too. All of these information mediums are overwhelmingly liberal and serve the big government, freedom-killing agenda of the left. (Z: Great point again, Morgan... imagine Pelosi allowing this to apply to newpapers when they're SO in HER bag!?!?)

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court has correctly found that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED upon! Barack Obama and the radical left won't be able to change this until and unless he gets to change the composition of the courts.

Enter our new Attorney General, Eric Holder. We know that Eric has a soft spot for terrorists, since he was instrumental in the pardoning of numerous terrorists at the end of Clinton's reign. We also know that Mr. Holder was heavily involved in the raid on the home of Elian Gonzalez to return him to communist Cuba, at GUN POINT! Eric Holder has a long history of opposing gun ownership for private citizens, but he doesn't hesitate using heavily armed government agents to raid the home of an American citizen protecting a small boy from communist slavery.
People like Eric Holder EPITOMIZE the radical left's opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms! After all, armed citizens are far more difficult to dictate to, or even enslave.

Attorney General Eric Holder is there for ONE purpose, to go after Americans, and our 2nd Amendment! Barack Obama already made it clear to the Jihadis that "we are not your enemy" when he spoke to Al-Aribiya radio two weeks ago. Obama wants space, he wants "breathing room" from the War On Terror so that he can use his new AG Holder to go after his American political opposition, and gun owners are right at the top of that list!

For now, Holder will have to nibble at the edges of the 2nd Amendment by issuing/enforcing extended waiting periods for gun purchases, restrictions on ammo purchases, listing everything bigger that a .22 caliber as an assault weapon, and engaging in other forms of subterfuge. But make no mistake, gun owners are in Holder's cross-hairs.

Buried in the trillion-page, TRILLION dollar beast of a "Stimulus Bill" on page 905 is a provision that sets up a healthcare treatment "commissar" who will consult with your doctor to give the ultimate yea or nay to your treatments. Surely something this intrusive should have been debated on the floor of both houses of Congress. Right? For further reading on this subject, here's something from the CNS news service...

Ladies and gentlemen, whether it's freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, or the simple freedom to consult privately with your doctor about your own healthcare, the left is out to DESTROY your freedom.

In 1985 ex-Soviet KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov sat down for a lengthy interview to explain how the war against America is being fought. It can be found here.

and Yuri explains the systematic "demoralization" process here.

Jonah Goldberg wrote, "what we call Liberalism, is in fact a descendant and manifestation of fascism. It is a totalitarian political religion." Mr. Goldberg is absolutely right!

Now what will we do about this full frontal assault on American freedom? Will we "go quietly into the good night" and accept the monstrous government yoke being forced on us by the newly inaugurated Obama Administration? Will we be passive in the face of the hideous assault on our freedoms?

Or will we be worthy of the sacrifices made by our forefathers who protected freedom? I'm getting my marching shoes ready. Will you join me?

Z: thanks, Morgan....there are many things we need to wake up and realize...and be vigilant about.

Justice Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer..

It is caught at an 'early stage'.

From the article linked above: "She is a liberal-leaning justice who has been vocal in recent years about the court's more conservative stance."

Which "more conservative stance" would that be? Constitutional? Can Obama appoint a MORE liberal judge?

It's a very difficult, dangerous disease, and I do wish her well.


z