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: