BREAKING NEWS: Kagan (Supreme Court Nominee) Advocates Radical Socialism – College Thesis Uncovered

Fellow Patriots,

We had originally been hesitant to involve the organization in the potential battle over Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS.

You see, up until this evening, Kagan’s History was largely unknown. This has changed, however, because RedState.com uncovered Kagan’s college thesis that essentially exposes her as an all out radical socialist.

Here is a quote to get you started:

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in
the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past
than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than pf socialism’s
greatness. conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has
overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for
explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party
never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in
particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to
the nation’s established parties?”

The thesis is very telling and quite profound. As
it turns out, according to Kagan’s thesis, she’s a part of a larger
movement to identify failures of socialist movements of the past, in
order to correct mistakes for future efforts
.

Liberty First PAC and the Patriot Caucus have launched a new petition
aimed at battling Kagan’s nomination and we thought we would send it to
you first.

Please follow these four steps:

1) Visit NoKagan.com and sign the petition (we have links to the thesis there as well)
2) Click here to Tweet the link and share it with your followers (This MUST go viral!)
3) Email your lists, friends and family and tell them to go to NoKagan.com and sign the petition!

Don’t let this administration install another radical in Government!

Elena Kagan Qualifications (the cartoon)

Next Up on Obama Chopping Block: Free Speech SCOTUS PICK CENSORSHIP ADVOCATE promoting an “illegitimate attempt to use ‘censorship to control thought.'”

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Next Up on Obama Chopping Block: Free Speech
SCOTUS PICK CENSORSHIP ADVOCATE promoting an “illegitimate attempt to use ‘censorship to control thought.'” Fascism in action. Watch him choke on his words. Fascinating to witness free countries fall under the spell of a would-be dictator. If your blood doesn’t run cold after viewing this video and reading this post, you’re already dead.
Obama at Hampton University – Hey don’t pay attention to the info on iphones and blogs.mov

This convergence of evil is no accident. Last week I reported: Obama Puts the Web Under Fed Control. A federal appeals court ruled last month that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. So last week the Obama Administration chose to “reclassify” the Internet so that it can regulate the Web anyway.

Now this. Any Senator who votes to confirm this freak is an enemy of the people.

Chief Justice Roberts: Kagan Asked Court to ‘Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters’ (CNSNews.com) – Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
 
Justice Kennedy described the law Kagan had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”
 
“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
 
In March 2009, six months before Kagan told the court that the government could bar corporations from publishing political pamphlets, her deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, had gone further, telling the court the Constitution authorized Congress to prohibit corporations from publishing full-length books that included passages advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

May 12th, 2010

By JULIE MASON, Washington Examiner

 

conflicts of interest could block her from ruling on cases dealing with Obama

President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court assumes that she will have to step aside on numerous cases. But that concern that was trumped by what Obama called her “skill as a consensus builder.”

For Obama, installing Kagan on the high court would mean more than adding another like-minded constitutional scholar to the mix. Ideally, Kagan would bring outreach skills the more liberal members of the court have been lacking.

“She has a long record as a consensus builder and is the kind of person who can bridge the 5-4 splits that have become so routine on this court,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kagan’s skill set appeals to Obama, who wants to expand on his first-year Supreme Court nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
While Sotomayor is a reliable liberal vote on the court and the first Latina to serve, she functions primarily as a counterpoint to the court’s conservatives. Obama perceives Kagan as a justice with a broader role on the court.

Read More:

Would someone please list Kagan’s qualifications?

Would someone please list Kagan’s qualifications?

J.C. Arenas

The “meat” of Elena Kagan’s resume can be found during her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law, but the more we chew on what this woman has actually done, the more we should realize it lacks flavor.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

But the case for Ms. Kagan as the primary healer on the once-divided campus is sometimes overstated. Much of the work to defuse the bitter atmosphere, which included ideologically driven standoffs over whom to hire, took place under Ms. Kagan’s predecessor, Robert Clark, dean for 14 years. He calmed tensions and expanded the faculty.

Those trends accelerated under Ms. Kagan’s leadership. Charles Fried, solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and a Harvard Law faculty member since 1961, said Mr. Clark “was trying, but it was a struggle every time.” Ms. Kagan, he said, “was just incredibly politically skillful” at recruitment and at selling faculty on her choices.

He also credits her with arranging a faculty lounge so it offered free lunch and large tables, where faculty could sit and get to know one another. “It was an absolute stroke of genius,” Mr. Fried said.

(snip)

As a Harvard faculty member, Ms. Kagan impressed then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers with her skill in handling a touchy issue: whether the law school should move to an alternate campus. The faculty had been fiercely opposed, but she helped develop a negotiating position in dealing with the rest of the university that spelled out under what conditions the law school would consider moving.

(snip)

Beyond the political atmosphere, Ms. Kagan is credited with improving student life through upgrades to the physical campus, such as a revamped student center, an upgraded gym and an ice-skating rink that doubled as a volleyball court. And she offered small things, like free coffee outside classrooms and free tampons in the women’s restrooms.

Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment was Sonia Sotomayor, the Bronx-bred daughter of Puerto Rican parents, who supposedly was a valedictorian student with a deficiency in English and become an Ivy-League educated jurist credited with saving Major League Baseball.

Now we have Elena Kagan, the granddaughter of immigrants, who as Dean of Harvard Law, introduced the concepts of civil debate, a faculty lounge, free coffee and tampons.

If this woman has some legitimate qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, I hope they are presented soon; otherwise I’m going to have a win a year supply of Laffy Taffy to find a bigger joke. 

J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com

Kagan: Some speech can be ‘disappeared’–Wanted ‘societal costs’ counted against 1st Amendment rights

LAW OF THE LAND

Kagan: Some speech can be ‘disappeared’

Wanted ‘societal costs’ counted against 1st Amendment rights


Posted: May 10, 2010
9:10 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Elena Kagan

 

NEW YORK – President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, argued certain forms of speech that promote “racial or gender inequality” could be “disappeared.”

In her few academic papers, Kagan evidences strong beliefs for court intervention in speech, going so far as to posit First Amendment speech should be weighed against “societal costs.”

In her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

“I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

 That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of “motives and … actions infested with them” and she goes so far as to claim that “First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting.”

 Kagan’s name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

 Kagan’s academic writings are sparse – just nine articles, two of which are book reviews.

 Her stand on free speech could become a hot button issue as the Senate convenes to confirm her. If approved, Kagan would give the high court three women justices for the first time. She would be the youngest member on the current court and the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.

WND has reported that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the country as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

WND also reported Kagan has advocated for an increased presidential role in regulation, which, she conceded, would make such affairs more and more an extension of the president’s own policy and political agenda.

Kagan was nominated as U.S. solicitor general by Obama in January and confirmed by the Senate in March. She was a dean of Harvard Law School and previously served alongside Obama as a professor of law at the University of Chicago.

A former clerk to Abner Mikva at the D.C. federal appeals court, Kagan was heavily involved in promoting the health-care policy of the Clinton administration.

Obama praised her because while he said a “judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law,” she has evidenced a “keen understanding of the impact of the law on people’s lives.”

The president said she has a “firm grasp on the nexus and boundaries between our three branches of government.”

But more importantly, she understands, “behind the law there are stories, stories of people’s lives,” Obama said.

Kagan said the law is “endlessly interesting” and also “protects the most fundamental rights and freedoms.”

With research by Brenda J. Elliott.

Elena Kagan Resume (the cartoon)

Kagan on Obama circa 2005

Kagan on Obama circa 2005

Greg Halvorson

By now, anyone with a working knowledge of narcissism recognizes the pathological condition of the president.  Even liberals concede that the man who sends thrills up Chris Mathews’ leg is self-absorbed. 

It therefore makes sense that Elena Kagan, his Solicitor General, is the SCOTUS nominee.  In 2005, at a Harvard luncheon, Ms. Kagan waxed eloquent on Obama.  She’d had the “privilege” of attending the DNC National Convention the year before and had experienced rapture:

He opened his mouth, said a few words, and the place was mesmerized.  You could hear a pin drop.  In part, that is because of all the rock star qualities he has: the eloquence, the magnetism, the great looks, the brilliance.  When he opens his mouth, you know what you’re getting. 

Kagan went on to call Obama a “hero,” concluding that he is “truly one of the great public servants of our time,” and gives many “hope” in the future of our country. 

Wow.  To label a man who voted “present” in the Illinois assembly and was a do-nothing Senator “great” is remarkable.  If Obama is “great,” may I ask, What is bad?  True, when he opens his mouth, we know what we’re getting, but based on the above, we know what we’re getting when Kagan opens hers.  A kool aid progressive who defines “hero” oddly, who believes rock stars “eloquent,” and who’s dipped her toe in the pool of Narcissus to admire Obama admiring himself. 

 

Greg Halvorson is the founder of Soldiers Without Boots, and hosts The Soldier One Radio Hour on Blog Talk Radio.

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: