Bennett loss signals perils of vote for a pro-socialist Supreme Court nominee.
(Page 2 of 4)
Now comes President Obama’s nomination of his Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School Dean Kagan, as a replacement for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
With the nomination barely 24-hours old, Senate Republicans are already doing their standard head-nodding “we’ll have to look at Elena’s record” blah-blah-blah. She’s nice. She’s swell. And, chime in her supporters helpfully, she’s a moderate. What a gal.
And in proceeding along those lines, the Senate GOP and the conservative movement are missing entirely what might be called a Kristol-clear opportunity.
The nomination of Elena Kagan is not about that nice Kagan woman. It is about her well and crisply stated views about “socialism’s greatness.” Views that, based on the actual record of the Obama presidency, this administration shares.
So. Got that? We have a Supreme Court nominee who believes in “socialism’s greatness.”
Socialism, then, is a highly relevant — the highly relevant — issue of this confirmation of an Obama nominated Supreme Court Justice.
This nomination fight must be about exactly what Ms. Kagan was thinking when she spent a lot of ink writing about “socialism’s greatness.” And how that thinking will affect her conduct on the bench.
Will she be confirmed? Maybe. Even probably. But her confirmation is quite beside the point. The notion that this President of the United States is a committed socialist is decidedly not beside the point. And as a symbol of the Obama administration Elena Kagan is a gift from the political MasterCard.
What needs to be discussed and debated, confirmed or rejected in this Supreme Court nomination is not Elena Kagan — but socialism itself.
This hearing and the debate that swirls around it should be one very slow-motion educational moment about every socialist thought, movement and result, from the Haymarket Riot of May 4, 1886 (which gave rise to the socialist and Communist celebration of “May Day”), to the policies of the National Socialist Party (the Nazis) of Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR) and countries such as the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (ruled by the socialist “Korean Worker’s Party”). How did major American cities like Los Angeles, Detroit and New Orleans get into such deep trouble that everything from bankruptcy to a hurricane pushes them to the brink? What about socialism can be found in the policies of states like California, New York, and Michigan — all three which are ravaged by high unemployment and, yes, the looming shadow of bankruptcy?
Witnesses should be called to testify about the socialism Ms. Kagan praised. What kind of witnesses? Who, exactly? Why, some of the most prominent socialist advocates on the American scene today.
• Reverend Jeremiah Wright — the now-retired pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, in whose pews President Obama sat for 20 years is well on the record in favor of socialism presented as “Black Liberation Theology”
• Bill Ayers — the famous Weatherman whom Sean Hannity calls “the unrepentant terrorist” describes himself as “a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” as reported by Stanley Kurtz in this article in the Wall Street Journal. Come up to the Hill, Bill. (Can we leave the bombs behind on this round?)
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online