Regardless of outcome, Elena Kagan not likely to change balance of Supreme Court.

Despite serious misgivings about the possibility of judicial activism on the part of Elena Kagan should she be confirmed to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, it is likely that the outcome of future Supreme Court cases would not be much affected.

It is not surprising that President Obama would elect someone with a liberal activist mentality to the Supreme Court.  Obama and his Democrat congress are perhaps the most activist legislative body since Lyndon Johnson's Presidency in the late 1960's, and look to surpass Johnson's legacy if Obama's agenda continues to roll through the legislature regardless of public sentiment, which has been against Obama for quite a while.

Justice Stevens has become increasingly liberal over the years.  As a dubious choice by then President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens has often been on the wrong side of Constitutional issues, up to and including one of the last acts of the current court.  Justice Stevens wrote the lengthy and seriously flawed dissent to the recent Supreme Court decision that 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights are for everyone in the nation, and cannot be restricted by regional governments.  Stevens insists that such rights are to be held collectively, and are not for the individual, as other Constitutional rights are commonly interpreted.

Elena Kagan, based upon her history of siding with liberal causes, up to an including ignoring established Federal law, would likely have agreed with Stevens.  Thus, as a replacement for Stevens, her opinion would have still been in the minority, and the 5-4 outcome would not have changed.

When Elena Kagan was the Dean of Harvard Law School, she deliberately ignored the Solomon Amendment, which made it illegal to keep military recruiters off of college campuses.  Her personal stance against President Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy concerning gays in the military, even though she worked for the Clinton White House when the policy was enacted, came before her adherence to the law.  She supported a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against her opinion. It took the threat of the withholding of Federal funding to Harvard Law School to force Kagan into compliance.

At the same time, there is some question as to what involvement Elena Kagan, as Dean of Harvard Law, has had in the withholding of Barack Obama's Harvard Law transcripts.  For some reason, Obama has continued to keep the world in the dark concerning his real achievements at Harvard Law. (His achievements at Columbia are a mystery as well, as his transcripts from that university are also sealed.)  Her rise to prominence within the Obama Administration, culminating with her nomination to the Supreme Court, has been the subject of much conversation.

Kagan has also argued before the Supreme Court that the distribution of political pamphlets should be regulated by the Government.  Her opinion would guarantee that government would have a hand in maintaining it's own authority, as any dissent could be quashed by government itself.  Such an opinion is a serious violation of the First Amendment Constitutional right of free speech.

Just as when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demonstrated her blind allegiance to the Obama agenda, when on the eve of the passage of ObamaCare, she stated "you must pass the bill to see what is in it", Kagan's confirmation is likely a forgone conclusion.  Considering the current political climate in Washington D.C., with the Democrat majority probably voting "en masse" for the President's pick despite her questionable legal judgment, the confirmation hearings currently going on are likely to amount to much political grandstanding, with no real effect on the actual decision making process.  

Supreme Court upholds the U.S. Constitution: The right to keep and bear arms is for every citizen.

The United States Supreme Court has once again had to tackle and affirm a Constitutional right that has existed for 219 years:   A ruling affirming the individual right to keep and bear firearms has just been handed down by the highest court of the land.

Why the Supreme Court has to constantly reconsider what has been common law in the United States for hundreds of years is beyond the understanding of a simple fellow like me.

There can be no plainer words than "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 Second Amendment is written in plain English, doesn't use any "5 Dollar Words", and is easy to read and understand.

U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to own guns, and use them when legally justified.  Period.  End of story.

The real question is why cities like Chicago, Illinois, and ironically, Washington, D.C. have been allowed to violate the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens for, in some cases, decades.  Chicago's gun ban has been in effect since 1982.  The people of one of the worlds largest cities, right here in the United States, have had their rights violated by their own local government for over a quarter century!  Today's ruling effectively strikes down the Chicago gun ban, and thwarts any effort by state and local governments to enact similar restrictive and un-American legislation.

It is heartening to see the U.S. Supreme Court continue to set precedent by upholding the United States Constitution, and I applaud their decision.  Now, if we can only get them to overturn governmental power grabs like arbitrary zoning laws, government bailouts and takeovers, ObamaCare, and other equally unconstitutional government encroachments upon private life, we can get back on the path to the freedom and prosperity our founders intended.

After the "primary bounce", TEA Party Candidate Sharron Angle still leads Reid.

While a lot of people wished to "spin" the fact that Sharron Angle opened the general election season well ahead of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid as a post-primary "bounce", in reality, it appears her lead is quite firm.  The most recent Rasmussen poll gives her a 7 point lead over the longtime Nevada politician.

Harry Reid has been troubled politically ever since his bitter and divisive comments concerning then President George W. Bush, calling him a "liar" among other things.  He compounded his troubles when he stated that the Iraq war "is lost", and that Barack Obama was well suited to run for President because he was a "light skinned" and had no "negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Reid long ago became enamored with the aura of Washington, D.C. politics and has lost touch with the citizens of Nevada.  As someone who actually voted for Reid when I lived in Nevada 20 years ago, I've seen his image go from one of sensible conservative values, to one of hard-line leftist rancor.

While Reid has moved left, his constituency has remained firmly planted in the middle.  Nevada, once a hard line conservative/libertarian state full of miners, ranchers, and the free-wheeling gambling industry, has become saturated with displaced Californians fleeing high real estate prices, exploding crime rates, and government over-regulation.

With Nevada's unemployment rate currently the highest in the nation at 14%, and Reid's only answer to the situation appearing to be his full support for Obama's economic policies, which have done absolutely nothing to shore up skyrocketing joblessness, it would appear that Reid is destined to join his fellow unemployed come November, albeit with a much better severance package.  President Obama's repeated use of derogatory comments to describe Las Vegas, and Reid's lackluster response, haven't helped Reid's image back home either.

A recent CBS news article has Reid's favorable rating at a dismal 8%, which is lower than that of Nancy Pelosi, and his unfavorable rating at 23%.

On the other hand, Sharron Angle, as the TEA Party's candidate, was once considered to be the weakest candidate to face Reid.  However, her strength as a candidate has surprised many.  Despite attempts to paint Angle as an extremist, she's been able to portray herself as someone with common-sense limited government ideals that play well with rural Nevadans, and her pro-business stance encourages Las Vegans who want to work, but cannot find jobs in today's stifling climate of job-killing government regulation.

Harry Reid has come to represent the big government status-quo in Washington, and the failed policies of the past, and Sharron Angle represents a positive future with people who increasingly see the growth of government power as the one threat most responsible for killing the "American Dream".

As a side note, Rory Reid, who is running for Nevada Governor, and happens to be Harry Reid's son, has dropped the use of his last name from his official campaign website.  This hasn't seemed to shore up his campaign much, as the most recent Rasmussen poll has Brian Sandoval ahead of Rory Reid by 22 points in the Nevada Governor's race.

Did General McChrystal figuratively "fall on a grenade" in order to save the men and women under his command?

Today, while driving back from Albuquerque, New Mexico, I was listening to Jim Villanucci on the radio. Villanucci is a popular radio talk show host.  In listening, I was presented with an interesting scenario concerning this weeks events surrounding General Stanley McChrystal and the Rolling Stone article that cost McChrystal his military leadership job in Afghanistan.

What if General McChrystal had run into a "brick wall" with the Obama Administration?  Unable to change Obama's mind on the course of the war, which hasn't been going well, what if McChrystal purposely put forth the article, knowing that he would be fired, and that General Petraeus would be put in charge?  Obama would be then forced to follow Petraeus' advice, lest Obama look like he is interfering too much in military activity.  It is being reported that one of General Petraeus' first acts as commander in Afghanistan is going to be the rescinding of the Obama administration's very restrictive "rules of engagement", which currently have our fighting men and women walking on eggshells, unable to fight back if fired upon unless expressly ordered to. Many are reporting that those current rules have led to the deaths of many American soldiers in Afghanistan.

All indications are that General McChrystal is nobody's fool.  He's a smart, efficient, badass soldier who knows exactly what he is doing.  He got the position in Afghanistan for a reason, and that reason is that he was best qualified for the job.

However, in describing his meetings with President Barack Obama, in which he described the President as "uncomfortable and intimidated" by top military leaders, it would appear that General McChrystal was not impressed by Obama.  There were many other sources of friction between McChrystal and top Obama Administration officials, particularly Vice-President Joe Biden, who had his own plan for the Afghan war, one which did not garner General McChrystal's good will.

It is my belief that war should be left to the military.  President Obama and Vice-President Biden are particularly inexperienced in the handling of the military situation in Afghanistan.  The Obama Administration, thinking they know best, did not give General McChrystal neither the manpower, nor the battle plans, requested by the General.

Perhaps McChrystal, rather than allowing more soldiers to die under Obama's rules of engagement that McChrystal himself could not change, felt it would be best to "fall on his sword" in order to create a situation where another General could take charge under his own terms, which would be better for the fighting men and women on the ground.

Just a crazy thought.

Blast from the past: The Carter "Malaise Speech".

I don't remember seeing this speech on television on July 15th 1979.  I was just two months into my 15th year when then President Jimmy Carter went before the American public nearly 31 years ago.  Being 15, I was likely too busy with the important matters of being 15 to pay much attention to what Carter had to say that particular night.

I do, however, vividly remember the feeling of July 15th, 1979.  In my house there had likely been a split vote in 1976, as my parents had somewhat differing political views.  By the middle of 1979, however, there was definitely a concerted feeling in our household that the nation was simply on the wrong track, and that our country was lacking the kind of leadership we desperately needed at the time.  We were still about 4 months away from the Iran Hostage Crisis, in which 52 U.S. Embassy staff in Tehran would be held hostage by Islamic militants for 444 days, but Iran was already a looming crisis in the news almost daily, as a once pro-U.S. government had already been toppled by Muslim extremists in January of 1979, after President Carter had refused to support the pro-U.S. Shah of Iran through the turmoil of the time.  Unemployment in the U.S. was inching upward of 7%, but the fiscal crisis' of the day were inflation, which stood at a whopping 11.3%, and interest rates, which hovered around 20%. The overall economic situation resulted in unprecedented "stagflation", a term coined by economists which described the combination of climbing prices and stagnant economic growth.

Probably the most visible sign that "all was not well" in the United States, were the skyrocketing gasoline prices and long gas lines caused by supposed "shortages" that were more the cause of distribution problems than any real oil shortage.  In the United States, we were already importing a good percentage of our petroleum from overseas sources, and in an effort to hold the U.S. hostage financially, the OPEC nations decided to "flex their muscle" in an attempt to boost oil prices, thus increasing their profits.

While many of the negative forces that shaped the Carter Presidency were out of his control, as the economic groundwork had been laid by previous congressional meddling in the free-market system, the response to those forces could be laid directly at his feet.  Carter's weak and waffling foreign policy, which was all his, allowed nations, which if not friends of the U.S., were at least respectful of U.S. power, to feel the urge to confront America in a variety of ways, both directly and economically.  Carter's attempt at "detente" with the Soviet Union, which showed hard-line leaders in Moscow that the U.S. was weakening it's firm stance against Communism, led to the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet forces in 1979.

Carter also often governed against the will of the people. Moves such as the Panama Canal giveaway, proposed fuel rationing, increased taxes, and his previously mentioned refusal to support the Shah of Iran, were unpopular with the American citizenry.  Overall, Carter's domestic and foreign policy blunders led to an impression among U.S. citizens, and the world, that America was a nation in decline.

Carter created both the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education, which were seen by many as great expansions of Federal power over areas where the Feds had no business.  What's more, he did it during a time when the nation's economy was floundering, and the public saw expansion of government, and increased government spending, as contrary to prudent fiscal policy.

All of this led to a dismally low 28% approval rating for President Carter one month before he made what he called the "Crisis of Confidence" speech, but which came to be known as the "Carter Malaise Speech".  Let's head back to July, 1979:

The Oil Spill Address: Barack Obama again runs for.....President.

If the American People wanted answers.  They didn't get any.  If the American People expected solutions.  Sorry, no such luck.  If the American People hoped to hear how the Obama Administration, in partnership with British Petroleum, was going to solve the oil spill crisis in the gulf, and clean up the mess.  Nothing doing.

What the American People got was another campaign speech.

President Obama gave an 18 minute address to the nation last night, and it was merely a re-iteration of some of the the same rhetoric that we heard from candidate Obama when he was running for the office of leader of the free world.  The only difference was that back then, it was fresh and new.  Last night, it sounded old and re-hashed.

What we did learn is that the arrogance and thuggery that is becoming synonymous with this administration was fully present, in that President Obama declared that he was going to "make" BP put money into a slush fund administered by a third party, money which is to be used to clean up the oil and compensate those who are losing their livelihoods due to the spill.  Sounds like tough talk from a man who is working hard in the interest of the people of the gulf region.  The only problem is:  President Obama simply doesn't have the power, under the Constitution, to do it.

The reality is, BP is legally bound to pay only the amount of damages up to the cap set by the U.S. Congress, which is currently $75 million. This does not mean that BP won't pay more, as anyone affected by the spill, including an entire state, can file a civil lawsuit which can be legally decided outside the scope of the Federal legal liability cap set by congress.  And BP itself has stated that they intend to do as much as possible to clean up the mess they've created, which includes spending well more than the $75 million cap.

We also learned, in President Obama's address, that he intends to use the oil spill situation as a campaign issue to press for all sorts of new regulation, new and increased taxes upon the American people, and subsidy for ethereal alternative forms of energy, none of which is a solution for the problem at hand. In other words, President Obama's insatiable drive to grow government is wholly intact.  And we leaned, through the absence of specifics, that the spill in the gulf is currently unstoppable, and it appears it will remain so for the foreseeable future.  Apparently the best we can hope for is for a better "mop up" effort in an attempt to soak up the continuous spillage of oil which is currently taking place.  But no details were forthcoming about how either BP, or the Federal Government, intended to improve what has been universally declared a dismal clean-up effort.

Basically, what we were offered last night was nothing more than a commonly vague political speech which gave us no real details or solutions for the problem today, and no real solutions or details for solving anything tomorrow.  It was a speech reminiscent of empty campaign promises, and as such, was utterly forgettable.

Muslim extremists hang 7 year old boy for spying. Anyone still think they are "just like us"?

Taliban militants have executed a 7 year old boy in the the Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, after accusing the boy of spying for the Afghan government.

After all of the documented atrocities committed by Muslim extremists over the decades, how anyone could still believe these barbarians are simply "patriots" or "freedom fighters", who are merely reacting to so-called "U.S. Imperialism", is beyond me.  As if the killing of thousands of innocent people around the world wasn't enough, many in the United States still ignore the simple fact that Muslim extremism is a true "culture of death", which threatens the very survival of the free world.  In short, these people want to either convert you to Islam, or kill you.  And they will not allow anyone to get in their way, and that includes their own children.

From terrorist acts against innocents, to the flogging and honor killings of women and girls who do not submit to Islam's Sharia law, to the stringing up of old people and kids, radical Islam has a message for us:  Submit or die.

Taliban executes 7 year old for "spying".

Democrats, be careful what you wish for: Angle opens general campaign with 11 point lead over Reid

Less than a month ago, if appeared to most Democrat pundits that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's political survival depended upon if TEA Party candidate Sharron Angle won the Republican nomination.  And the mainstream media pushed the idea that an Angle win would likely mean a Reid win in November.

Today, it would appear that both Democrats and the media have underestimated the power of the TEA Party movement.  I have long contended the TEA Party movement is actually larger than it appears, due to a concerted media effort to under-report TEA party activism.

Rasmussen polling data from June 9 shows Sharron Angle with an 11 point lead over Harry Reid, just one day after Angle handily won the Nevada Republican primary.

Angle had been considered by the Reid campaign to be the weakest candidate to oppose him in November's election, and sources quietly hoped for an Angle win to bolster long-term politician Reid's chances of keeping his Senate seat.

It would appear that the Reid campaign has sorely underestimated the recent increase in public disdain for the Nevada politician, who has been involved in Nevada politics since being elected Nevada's Lieutenant Governor in 1970.

Sharron Angle opens with 11 point lead over Harry Reid.