Teacher Deems Student’s American Flag Drawing ‘Offensive’–but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama

Fox News Radio: The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.

http://www.breitbart.tv/teacher-deems-students-american-flag-drawing-offensive/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Morning Bell: Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Morning Bell: Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Posted By Conn Carroll On May 10, 2010 @ 9:37 am In Rule of Law | 35 Comments

[1]

According to multiple [2] sources [3], at 10 am today President Barack Obama will announce his decision to name Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan, who served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. But this does not mean she is in any way a stranger to the Senate confirmation process. In fact, in 1995 she authored an article [4] on judicial confirmations for the University of Chicago Law Review where she wrote:

The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. … [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.

On this point, we find agreement with Ms. Kagan. As we documented first with the Justice Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings [5], and again with the University of California at Berkeley law school Associate Dean Goodwin Liu hearings [6], President Obama’s leftist legal nominees have been completely unwilling and unable to defend their liberal legal views from Senate questioning. Instead they have retreated or renounced their past writings in an all too familiar spectacle that Kagan has said: “takes on an air of vacuity and farce.” We sincerely hope that Kagan continues to reject this model and that the U.S. Senate fulfills its proper advice and consent [7] role. Responding to the news of Kagan’s nomination, Former Attorney General Ed Meese released the following statement:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

The American people agree. According to a national post-election 2008 survey of 800 actual voters, the polling company, inc. [8] found that 70% of respondents preferred that judges not base their decisions on personal views and feelings. And according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll [9] by a 16 point margin more Americans believe the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution instead of considering changing times and current realities. And finally, the latest Gallup poll [10] shows that more Americans “would prefer a new Supreme Court justice who makes the court more conservative (42%) over one who would make the Court more liberal (27%).” Let’s hope the Senate gives the American people what they want.

Quick Hits:

McCain more interested in attacking JD Hayworth than he was Obama. If McCain had gone after Obama the way he is going after JD, he’d probably be president right now

McCain attacking JD Hayworth much more than he attacked ObamaPosted by Guest Opinion under Campaigns & Elections
[33] Comments 

Thursday, May 6, 2010

McCain more interested in attacking JD Hayworth than he was Obama. If McCain had gone after Obama the way he is going after JD, he’d probably be president right now

McCain, who labels himself in recent television ads as “the last line of defense” against Obama, is attacking JD Hayworth harder than he ever attacked Obama. Although polling in 2008 revealed that attacking Obama’s America-hating Pastor Reverend Wright would have aided his failing campaign, McCain refused to. From a Politico article: “Wright is off the table,” said one top campaign official. “It’s all McCain. He won’t go there. His advisers would have gone there.” Among those who think Wright is fair game is McCain’s running mate, Palin, who told conservative commentator William Kristol for a New York Times column last month: “To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that – with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave – to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”
Wright should have been fair game. His anti-American statements needed to be denounced. Even OBAMA denounced them! In his famous speech on race, delivered in Philadelphia in March, Obama condemned Wright’s use of “incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.”
Now, the McCain campaign is going full throttle attacking JD Hayworth on baseless claims. They’ve attacked him for being a birther — he’s not. They’ve attacked statements he’s made on gay marriage — at least JD is consistent; McCain flip-flops on gay marriage. They’ve attacked him for receiving $2250 from Abramoff, which JD donated to charity after it was determined Abramoff was corrupt – yet McCain’s prominent endorser Grover Norquist served as an actual conduit for Abramoff funds.
Memo to John McCain: if you’d put as much effort into attacking Democrat Obama as you are fellow Republican Hayworth, maybe you would be president now

You won’t find tea partiers saying anything this far outside the mainstream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s&feature=player_embedded

President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing

Obama bemoans ‘diversions’ of IPod, Xbox era==“I’m still clinging to my BlackBerry,”– “They’re going to pry it out of my hands.”

Obama bemoans ‘diversions’ of IPod, Xbox era

May 10th, 2010

AFP

US President Barack Obama lamented Sunday that in the iPad and Xbox era, information had become a diversion that was imposing new strains on democracy, in his latest critique of modern media.

Obama, who often chides journalists and cable news outlets for obsessing with political horse race coverage rather than serious issues, told a class of graduating university students that education was the key to progress.

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,” Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,” in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

“All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

Hypocrisy Watch: For BlackBerry, Obama’s Devotion Is Priceless 

President-elect Barack Obama has repeatedly said how much his BlackBerry means to him and how he is dreading the prospect of being forced to give it up, because of legal and security concerns, once he takes office.

“I’m still clinging to my BlackBerry,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times. “They’re going to pry it out of my hands.”

Read More:

Obama’s Dangerous Doubletalk

Obama’s Dangerous Doubletalk

May 10th, 2010

By Ken Klukowski, Fox News

President Obama’s commencement speech at the University of Michigan on May 1 would have been great, except that it so blatantly contradicts his actions that the speech was nothing short of Orwellian. This is only the latest example of where Obama’s rhetoric is diametrically opposed to his policies, and included one of his favorite tactics to discredit his critics and advance his agenda.

Last Saturday, the president spoke to new graduates in Ann Arbor about valuing dissent. He suggested those who listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck visit liberal websites. Evidently appreciating that this would seem unbalanced, he also said that those who read the New York Times should try the Wall Street Journal on occasion.

The president cited these as examples of valuing diversity. He concluded that, “the practice of listening to opposing voices is essential for effective citizenship.”

The president added, “You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism.” He then criticizes those who use phrases such as “socialist” or “Soviet-style takeover” to describe his policies.

President Obama’s hypocrisy is simply breathless. These statements completely contradict his policies.

First, what if such a descriptive term is appropriate? “Socialism” is where government controls the means of economic production to provide a certain minimum standard of living through basic entitlements, paid for through taxes and fees. You can refer to a particular law as embodying socialism without calling its supporters socialists.

Read More:

One of Obama’s closest friends part of federal probe

One of Obama’s closest friends part of federal probe

May 10th, 2010

BY DAVE McKINNEY, Chicago Sun Times

 Obama with Dr. Eric Whitaker

E-mails and other records of Dr. Eric Whitaker — one of President Obama’s best friends — have been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

The investigation involves “faith-based initiatives” and health-awareness campaigns funded by the Illinois Department of Public Health when Whitaker ran the agency for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, according to copies of subpoenas obtained under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

Obama has said he recommended Whitaker for that job, which Whitaker landed in April 2003. The president’s friend resigned in October 2007 to join Obama’s wife, Michelle, as an executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

On Friday, Whitaker defended his work as the state’s former top health official, saying he developed “new methods” to help “African-American and other minority communities” get better medical care.

“The faith-based outreach programs at issue in this inquiry were recognized during my tenure by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others as national models for increasing awareness and preparedness planning for minority populations,” Whitaker said in a statement. “The programs were functioning well when I left the department in 2007.”

Read More:

PRESIDENT LASHES OUT AT MEDIA WORLD; IPADS, XBOXES, RUMORS…BUT HOOKED ON CRACKBERRY…

For BlackBerry, Obama’s Devotion Is Priceless

This week, Michael Phelps signed a deal worth more than $1 million to advertise Mazda in China. Jerry Seinfeld earned a reported $10 million to appear in Microsoft’s recent television campaign.

But the person who may be the biggest celebrity pitchman in the world is not earning a penny for his work.

President-elect Barack Obama has repeatedly said how much his BlackBerry means to him and how he is dreading the prospect of being forced to give it up, because of legal and security concerns, once he takes office.

“I’m still clinging to my BlackBerry,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times. “They’re going to pry it out of my hands.”

What could the “BlackBerry president” charge for his plugs of the device if he were not a public servant? More than $25 million, marketing experts say, and maybe as much as $50 million.

“This would be almost the biggest endorsement deal in the history of endorsements,” said Doug Shabelman, the president of Burns Entertainment, which arranges deals between celebrities and companies. “He’s consistently seen using it and consistently in the news arguing — and arguing with issues of national security and global welfare — how he absolutely needs this to function on a daily basis.”

Mr. Obama is an ideal marketing representative, other agents say — popular, constantly in the news and explicit about his attachment to the product.

“You always want the celebrity to be a good fit with your brand, and is anybody considered a better communicator right now than Barack Obama, or a better networker?” said Fran Kelly, the chief executive of the advertising agency Arnold Worldwide, who estimated that an endorsement by Mr. Obama would be worth $25 million. “It couldn’t have a better spokesperson.”

Mr. Shabelman put the value even higher, at $50 million or more, because the endorsement is worldwide.

“The worth to a company to have the president always talking about a BlackBerry and how it absolutely is a necessity to keep in touch with reality?” he said. “Think about how far the company has come if they’re able to say, ‘The president has to have this to keep in touch.’ ”

The maker of the BlackBerry, Research in Motion, recently introduced advertising campaigns and products like the touch-screen Storm that are meant to position BlackBerry as not just a business device but a consumer product like the iPhone. The company, which declined to comment on Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for its product, also struck a sponsorship deal with John Mayer, a popular guitarist but hardly the leader of the free world.

“The most powerful man in the country is saying, at this moment, basically, I can’t live without mine,” Lori Sale, the head of artist marketing at the agency Paradigm, which pairs actors like Adrien Brody and Katherine Heigl with advertisers. “It represents their now complete and final crossover to a device that people adore.”

Ms. Sale said that Mr. Obama had essentially participated in what is called a satellite media tour for BlackBerry by discussing the product with reporters. Just a single day of a media tour, “with the most A-list of A-list of A-list, would probably be 10 to 15 million dollars,” she said.

That he is not paid to promote BlackBerry is even better for R.I.M. “What makes it even more valuable than that is how authentic it is,” she said.

Mr. Kelly said the endorsement went both ways: while Mr. Obama was doing a lot for BlackBerry, BlackBerry had helped Mr. Obama’s image by making his message seem more relevant.

“The BlackBerry anecdotes are a huge part of Obama’s brand reputation,” he said. “It positions him as one of us: he’s got friends and family and people to communicate with us, just like all of us. And it positions him as a next-generation politician.”

Inevitably, perhaps, marketing executives dream about creating an ad featuring the president-elect, something Gene Liebel, a partner in the Brooklyn agency Huge, said would be a “fantasy assignment.”

Asked what tagline he might use for the campaign, Mr. Liebel repeated one his employees had thought up: “If Blagojevich can pick my replacement, I can pick my device.”

R. Vann Graves, the chief creative officer of the UniWorld Group, suggested a campaign showing Mr. Obama in the Oval Office. “In the foreground, you have the desk, but instead of having the proverbial red phone, you have a red BlackBerry,” Mr. Graves said, with the tagline “Shot Caller.”

Matt Reinhard, the executive creative director of DDB Los Angeles, suggested Apple try to steal Mr. Obama away from BlackBerry as a spokesman for the iPhone.

The message could be, “It’s time for change,” Mr. Reinhard said.

Why the Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped

Why the Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped

By Madeline Brooks

Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. Why shouldn’t Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to the U.S. created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us? They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people.
The Imam of the Ground Zero Insult, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is not the nice guy he likes to hold himself out to be. At his Friday afternoon khutbah services and in his book What’s Right With Islam Rauf states that he wants the mosque to be a place where inter-faith understanding is fostered. His sonorous voice is smooth and almost hypnotic. His writing style appears to be rational and unthreatening.

However, this does not jibe with the aspects of him that are downright hostile and frightening.

During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, “U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.” Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians. 
Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization. CAIR is also the initiator of numerous cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic processes to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic. 
Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a “peace and love” image. But that’s not the whole picture. Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war, too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, explains the contradiction between Rauf’s image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?
A previous Rauf project, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, clearly shows on its website that it is headed and funded by individuals from Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned fifteen of the nineteen jihad jockeys who rode the 9/11 planes of destruction. The funding for the mosque at Ground Zero is much murkier so far. All that has been publicly disclosed is that the support comes from unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim-ruled Malaysia. Rauf reportedly says he paid $4.85 million for the property — in cash. Where exactly did this money come from? Was it Wahhabist-supporting Saudi sources, which have already funded many other mosques in New York City?
The mosque is called Cordoba House. Muslims like to refer to Spain and especially the city of Cordoba as a place where their rule reached a glorious peak. Contrary to the myth of a Golden Age of equality during the Muslim occupation of Spain (and in particular in Cordoba), Spain and Cordoba were places where Christians and Jews suffered as social inferiors under Islamic oppression. Equal civil rights never existed for non-Muslims under Sharia, or Islamic law. Rauf even admits as much when he writes, “Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule simply had to pay a tax to finance their protection by their Muslim overlords.” This is not equality! Americans do not demand a special tax to protect Muslims from ourselves. That would be extortion, not “protection.”
Through another organization Rauf started called the Cordoba Initiative, he created the “Sharia Index.” This will measure how closely countries follow Sharia, or Islamic law. While Sharia can cover such relatively innocuous aspects of Muslim life as religious weddings (hopefully not to twelve-year-old girls), it also demands that all Muslim life be governed by laws derived from the Koran, without the intervention of civic institutions, such as democracy. And the Koran dictates that everyone, even non-Muslims, must ultimately live under Sharia. Do you understand how that is in direct conflict with our Constitution and other aspects of our secular society? 
Rauf gets even trickier here. He states in What’s Right With Islam that a society that follows natural law, such as America, is already practicing Sharia. However, he does not note that his peculiar definition of Sharia acceptance is shared by just about no other Imam. So what prevents him from adjusting his singular idea of Sharia back to the norm of forced conversions, murdering non-Muslims and apostates, amputations of thieves’ hands, stoning of adulterous women, execution of homosexuals, etc.? Throughout his writing, Rauf floats an image of a harmonious, pleasant Islam — nice to everybody. But this is totally disconnected from Islam’s actual history of bloody conquest, enslavement, and humiliation of other people — which he never acknowledges. 
Still another unsettling part of Rauf’s problem mosque is why the city has given the building a pass. Records for the Department of Buildings have shown numerous complaints for illegal construction and no access, yet the issues were listed as “resolved.”
Community Board One’s financial district committee needs to reconsider its endorsement of this mosque. The prestigious American groups that are reportedly also financing the mosque, The Ford Foundation and The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, need to think again about what they are getting into. The Department of Buildings needs to reassess its action. The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, which supports the project (Why? What has a religious building got to do with immigration?) needs to reevaluate its approval. 
Mayor Bloomberg himself needs to withdraw his support for this mosque, especially in light of the recent Times Square car bomb attempt. If not, he will be helping to provide a handy meeting place for future terrorists, those who understand Imam Rauf’s real message: Speak sweetly, appear to be a well-adjusted member of American society, and plan the destruction of America, either with bombs or “peaceful” undermining. 

Madeline Brooks is an NYC resident and writer.