The question everyone's whispering about Kagan - Page 8
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: The question everyone's whispering about Kagan

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Central N.Car.
    Posts
    534
    What Freudian BS. Sad that you really believe this crap. An intelligent person or even a dummy can easily see the recruitment efforts going on. "Alternate lifestyles" are the words used to cover the slimy sleazy lust driven perverts efforts. It is pervading even kindergarten literature. If you cannot see it then either you do not care or are part of the effort.

  2.   
  3. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    SAN FRANCISCO—Spokespersons for the National Gay & Lesbian Recruitment Task Force announced Monday that more than 288,000 straights have been converted to homosexuality since Jan. 1, 1998, putting the group well on pace to reach its goal of 350,000 conversions by the end of the year.


    "Thanks to the tireless efforts of our missionaries nationwide, in the first seven months of 1998, nearly 300,000 heterosexuals were ensnared in the Pink Triangle," said NGLRTF co-director Patricia Emmonds. "Clearly, the activist homosexual lobby is winning."

    Emmonds credited much of the recruiting success to the gay lobby's infiltration of America's public schools, where programs promoting the homosexual lifestyle are regularly presented to children as young as 5.

    "It's crucial that we reach these kids while they're still young," Emmonds said. "That's when they're most vulnerable to our message of sexual promiscuity and deviance."

    "When I grow up, I want to be gay," said Christopher Linn, 8, a second-grader at Philadelphia's Lakeside Elementary School, one of thousands of public schools nationwide that actively promote the homosexual agenda. "I don't want to have a family or go to church."


    Above: Lansing, MI, fifth-grade teacher Margaret Gerhardt. Gerhardt's is one of countless elementary-school classes across the U.S. in which the homosexual agenda and lifestyle are actively promoted.
    "Straight people don't have any fun," said Teddy Nance, 11, after watching Breeders Are Boring!, an anti-heterosexual filmstrip, in his fifth-grade class at Crestwood Elementary School in Roanoke, VA. "Gay people get to do whatever they want."

    In addition to school programs that target youths, the NGLRTF launched a $630 million advertising campaign this year in an effort to convert adults to homosexuality. The campaign, which features TV and radio spots, as well as print advertising in major national magazines, has helped convince thousands of people to leave their spouses and families for a life of self-gratification and irresponsibility.

    "The gay lifestyle is for me," said James Miller, an Oklahoma City father of four who recently moved to Provincetown, MA, to pursue a career in bath-house management. "When I was a family man, I constantly had to worry about things like taking the kids to Little League practice, paying for their braces, and remembering my wife's birthday. But now that I'm gay, I'm finally free to focus all my energy on having non-stop, mind-blowing anal sex."

    Though Emmonds said gays have been tremendously successful in tearing at the fabric of society and subverting basic decency, she stressed that their work is far from over.

    "For all the progress we've made, America is still overwhelmingly heterosexual," said Emmonds, who is calling for an additional $2.6 billion in federal aid to further the gay agenda. "If we are to insidiously penetrate American society, as we constantly do each other's orifices, we need more money and resources. Without such help, this country will remain the domain of decent, moral, God-fearing Christians. And that would be a sin."


    WackyIraqi.com - The Onion | '98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal

  4. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    I know HK, it's just that these 3 day holidays really get to me. Being retired I don't get any days off to enjoy them, somehow it doesn't seem fair. I'm feeling better now, thanks for the reminder.
    I understand Ringo. I am looking forward to my retirement in a couple years. Plan on doing a little traveling then if the country is still in one piece.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA
    Posts
    8,520
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    I understand Ringo. I am looking forward to my retirement in a couple years. Plan on doing a little traveling then if the country is still in one piece.
    I sure hope it is too HK, there's so much to see and you don't want to hurry through it. Gotta smell them roses!
    The Most Important Thing That You Can Do In This Life, Is To Determine "WHERE" You Will "LIVE" In The Next Life.

  6. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    I sure hope it is too HK, there's so much to see and you don't want to hurry through it. Gotta smell them roses!
    Best way to do that, IMO, is on the back of a hawg. One of my "bucket list" items is to make an extended tour of this great country on the old scoot. I did it many, many years ago in a VW Superbeetle (7000 mile jaunt). I want to do it again before I depart. Great way to "smell the roses".
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  7. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Best way to do that, IMO, is on the back of a hawg. One of my "bucket list" items is to make an extended tour of this great country on the old scoot. I did it many, many years ago in a VW Superbeetle (7000 mile jaunt). I want to do it again before I depart. Great way to "smell the roses".
    I am sure that would be fun but I am getting older and lazy and the joints are a lot stiffer than when I was young. Add to that a wife and a dog that will be going along and I think a small motor home will be in order. Now pulling one on a trailer behind the motor home so I could ride when I wanted to, that might be an option.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Best way to do that, IMO, is on the back of a hawg. One of my "bucket list" items is to make an extended tour of this great country on the old scoot. I did it many, many years ago in a VW Superbeetle (7000 mile jaunt). I want to do it again before I depart. Great way to "smell the roses".
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
    Semper Fi

  9. #78

    Kagan's threat to gun owners

    President Obama (SIQ) poses a real and present danger to the Second Amendment, and he's working to pack the Supreme Court with justices who will undermine Americans' gun rights.


    Mr. Obama didn't fess up to this radical agenda when running for the highest office in the land. "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on," Mr. Obama told Fox News in June 2008. Despite the campaign rhetoric, Mr. Obama is appointing judges who strongly oppose that position. The most recent pick, Elena Kagan, ran much of President Clinton's war on guns from 1995 to 1999.


    When Ms. Kagan served as Mr. Clinton's deputy domestic policy adviser, she was a feverish proponent of gun control. From gunlock mandates to gun-show regulations, she was instrumental in pushing anti-gun policies, according to the Los Angeles Times.


    Every court nomination counts. Two years ago, the Supreme Court barely mustered a narrow 5-4 majority to strike down the extreme District of Columbia gun ban. Should Justice Anthony Kennedy or one of the four more conservative justices retire or die while Mr. Obama is in office, the high court likely will undo such narrow victories for the Second Amendment. While Ms. Kagan was nominated to replace the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, and thus won't swing the court in a new direction, her being there will necessitate that gun owners concentrate more than ever on fighting outright gun bans.


    Ms. Kagan's defenders acknowledge her liberal political views but claim that as a judge, the former Harvard Law School dean will somehow manage to separate her judgments from her political opinions. The hitch is that her legal views correspond with her political views. When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, "I'm not sympathetic" to the claim that "the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate [an individual's] constitutional right to 'keep and bear Arms.' "


    Her memos to Justice Marshall foreshadow an activist judge who wouldn't hesitate to fall back on her own personal views to override policy decisions made by elected officials. She clearly counseled Justice Marshall on how he should rule based upon whether she thought policies made "sense." Take her advice in the case of Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, in which an appeals court stopped federal agencies from issuing a permit to build a ski lodge in a national forest. Ms. Kagan might feel that stopping ski resorts from such building makes "policy sense," but that isn't the job of a judge.


    Ms. Kagan is Justice Sonia Sotomayor's soul sister when it comes to gun control. Last year, during her confirmation hearings, Ms. Sotomayor insisted the Supreme Court had never found that an individual right to self-defense exists. Two of Justice Sotomayor's own appeals court decisions came to the same conclusion. One ruling denied there is an individual right to self-defense. In another case, even after the Supreme Court struck down the District's gun ban, Judge Sotomayor opined that any restrictions on self-defense would pass constitutional muster so long as politicians who passed it said they had a good reason.


    Senators must realize that a vote for Ms. Kagan for the Supreme Court is another vote against gun rights.

    Source:
    EDITORIAL: Kagan's threat to gun owners - Washington Times

    Contact Your Two U.S. Senators:
    U.S. Senate: Senators Home

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government ...

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. #79

    GOP Senators Raise Concerns over Kagan's Background, Record on Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    President Obama (SIQ) poses a real and present danger to the Second Amendment, and he's working to pack the Supreme Court with justices who will undermine Americans' gun rights.


    Mr. Obama didn't fess up to this radical agenda when running for the highest office in the land. "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on," Mr. Obama told Fox News in June 2008. Despite the campaign rhetoric, Mr. Obama is appointing judges who strongly oppose that position. The most recent pick, Elena Kagan, ran much of President Clinton's war on guns from 1995 to 1999.


    When Ms. Kagan served as Mr. Clinton's deputy domestic policy adviser, she was a feverish proponent of gun control. From gunlock mandates to gun-show regulations, she was instrumental in pushing anti-gun policies, according to the Los Angeles Times.


    Every court nomination counts. Two years ago, the Supreme Court barely mustered a narrow 5-4 majority to strike down the extreme District of Columbia gun ban. Should Justice Anthony Kennedy or one of the four more conservative justices retire or die while Mr. Obama is in office, the high court likely will undo such narrow victories for the Second Amendment. While Ms. Kagan was nominated to replace the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, and thus won't swing the court in a new direction, her being there will necessitate that gun owners concentrate more than ever on fighting outright gun bans.


    Ms. Kagan's defenders acknowledge her liberal political views but claim that as a judge, the former Harvard Law School dean will somehow manage to separate her judgments from her political opinions. The hitch is that her legal views correspond with her political views. When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, "I'm not sympathetic" to the claim that "the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate [an individual's] constitutional right to 'keep and bear Arms.' "


    Her memos to Justice Marshall foreshadow an activist judge who wouldn't hesitate to fall back on her own personal views to override policy decisions made by elected officials. She clearly counseled Justice Marshall on how he should rule based upon whether she thought policies made "sense." Take her advice in the case of Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, in which an appeals court stopped federal agencies from issuing a permit to build a ski lodge in a national forest. Ms. Kagan might feel that stopping ski resorts from such building makes "policy sense," but that isn't the job of a judge.


    Ms. Kagan is Justice Sonia Sotomayor's soul sister when it comes to gun control. Last year, during her confirmation hearings, Ms. Sotomayor insisted the Supreme Court had never found that an individual right to self-defense exists. Two of Justice Sotomayor's own appeals court decisions came to the same conclusion. One ruling denied there is an individual right to self-defense. In another case, even after the Supreme Court struck down the District's gun ban, Judge Sotomayor opined that any restrictions on self-defense would pass constitutional muster so long as politicians who passed it said they had a good reason.


    Senators must realize that a vote for Ms. Kagan for the Supreme Court is another vote against gun rights.

    Source:
    EDITORIAL: Kagan's threat to gun owners - Washington Times

    Contact Your Two U.S. Senators:
    U.S. Senate: Senators Home

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government ...

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT
    Congressional Documents and Publications


    June 23, 2010

    U.S. SENATE DOCUMENTS

    1866 words


    GOP Senators Raise Concerns over Kagan's Background, Record on Guns

    June 23, 2010

    Contact: Stephen Miller or Stephen Boyd (202) 224-5225

    GOP Senators Raise Concerns over Kagan's Background, Record on Guns

    Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this vacancy is being left by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.

    The President has the constitutional prerogative to nominate whosoever he chooses, but it is important to recognize the Constitution does not stop there. It also provides a second constitutional obligation or responsibility, in this case upon the Senate, when it comes to the duty of advice and consent.

    We know there are only nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and that each has that job for life. It goes without saying--or it should, I would add--that the process in the Senate must be fair and dignified. I wish I could tell you it has always been that way, but I believe the confirmation process of Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court was conducted in that way, and I certainly believe so will this confirmation process as well. But in addition to being fair and dignified, it must also be careful, thorough, and comprehensive.

    Our job is particularly difficult because of the fact that Solicitor General Kagan has never been a judge.
    She is a blank slate in that regard. We do not have any prior opinions to study. While that is not unprecedented, it is somewhat unusual for someone to come to the U.S. Supreme Court without ever having served as a judge.

    In addition, we know General Kagan has practiced law only very briefly. She was an entry level lawyer in a Washington law firm for about 2 years and then, of course, last year she was chosen by the President to be Solicitor General at the Justice Department. But that brief experience tells us virtually nothing about how she would approach cases as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    What we do know about Elena Kagan begins, and largely ends, with her resume. We know the jobs she has held. We know the positions she has occupied and the employers she has chosen to work for. A review of her resume shows us two things. First, Ms. Kagan is very smart. Her academic records are impressive. Second, we know Ms. Kagan has been a political strategist for a quarter of a century, but she has never been a judge. We know she has served extensively and repeatedly as a political operative, adviser, and a policymaker--quite a different job than that she would assume should she be confirmed.

    We know General Kagan's political causes date back to at least college, when she volunteered to help a Senate candidate in her native State of New York.

    We know that after law school, she worked for two of the most activist Federal judges in the 20th century, Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall. Justice Marshall often described his judicial philosophy as ``do what you think is right.'' I wish he had mentioned something about applying the law, but he said to do whatever you think is right. Elena Kagan has called Justice Marshall her judicial hero.

    We know that Solicitor General Kagan volunteered for a time in the Michael Dukakis campaign for President in 1988, where she did opposition research.

    We know that a few years later, Ms. Kagan advised then-Senator Joe Biden during the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    We know General Kagan gave up her teaching job to work at the Clinton White House where she was a leading policy adviser on many of the hot button issues of the day. She was a deputy assistant to the President on domestic policy. She was a deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council. During that time, she was a leading policy adviser on a number of controversial issues regarding abortion, gun rights, and affirmative action.

    After she left the Clinton White House, Ms. Kagan's political skills helped her become dean of the Harvard Law School and, by all accounts, she was successful in that job as an administrator and as a fundraiser. The one clear legal position she took as dean was her position against military recruiters that the Supreme Court rejected 9 to 0.

    Solicitor General Kagan returned to government a year ago when she became Solicitor General following the election of her friend Barack Obama.

    Ms. Kagan's resume shows that she is very comfortable in the world of politics and political campaigns. She has worked hard as a policy and political strategist in some very intense political environments. As a policy and political adviser, her record indicates she has been successful.

    The question raised by this nomination, though, is whether Elena Kagan can step outside of her past role as political adviser and policy strategist in order to become a Federal judge. I have had the honor of being a State court judge and I know firsthand that being a judge is much different from being a political strategist. The job of a political strategist is to help enact policies. The job of a judge is to apply the law wherever it takes them.

    The goal of a political adviser is to try to win for your team. On the other hand, a good judge doesn't root for or fight for a team but, rather, is impartial or, as sometimes stated, is disinterested in results, in winners and in losers.

    The important question is whether Solicitor General Kagan can and will set aside her considerable skills as a political adviser to take on a very different job as a neutral judge. Will she apply the law fairly, regardless of the politics involved" Will Solicitor General Kagan appreciate the traditionally narrow role of a judge who must apply the law rather than the activist role of a judge who thinks it is proper to make up the law" Can she make the transition from political strategist to judge?

    The hearings on Ms. Kagan's nomination are 1 week from today. I hope the hearings will be a substantive and meaningful opportunity for Elena Kagan to explain how she plans to make that shift from political strategist to judge. Because she has never been a judge, the hearings will be a chance to learn about what she expects her judicial philosophy and approach will be.

    Every candidate for the Supreme Court has the burden of proof to show they are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Most nominees have a much longer record, including a record of judicial service, which could help satisfy that burden of proof, but not so in Ms. Kagan's case. Given Ms. Kagan's sparse record, however, the hearings themselves must be particularly substantive.

    In 1995, then-Professor Kagan gave advice in a Law Review article to the U.S. Senate on how to scrutinize a Supreme Court nominee. She wrote that the ``critical inquiry'' must be ``the perspective [the nominee] would add'' and ``the direction in which she would move the institution.

    ''I agree. Given Solicitor General Kagan's sparse record and her lack of judicial experience, it is important that the hearings be an opportunity to fill in the blank slate that is Elena Kagan.

    Mr. President, I yield the floor.

    *****************************

    Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I just returned from spending a weekend in Wyoming talking to many people around the Cowboy State who are concerned about our Nation, concerned about the growing debt, concerned about jobs and the economy, and the concern that Washington has taken our eye off the ball.

    They also have considerable concerns and questions specifically about the nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. I heard this when I was in Thermopolis, WY; when I was in Sheridan; when I was in Casper.

    So what I want to do is spend a few minutes discussing and questioning the views on the second amendment of Elena Kagan. The second amendment in Wyoming, as you know, is nothing we take for granted. It is something we hold very dear. We do not take it for granted because our lives depend upon it.

    The second amendment allows us to defend ourselves from harm. It also puts food on our tables. These are the values and the virtues that make this issue so important to Wyoming. I understand next week Ms. Kagan's hearings will begin. It is my hope we will have a clear picture of where she stands on the right to keep and to bear arms.

    The window into her views is small. I hope the hearing will open that window wider for the American people. Her clerkship to Justice Thurgood Marshall and the documents connected to her time in the Clinton White House only crack that window a little bit. I want to hear from her.

    I want to hear why Ms. Kagan recommended to throw out the Sandidge v. the United States case from the Supreme Court. This is a case that involved an individual charged with possession of a handgun and ammunition in the District of Columbia.

    In a one-paragraph recommendation to Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan wrote:

    The petitioner's sole contention is that the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

    She went on to write:

    I am not sympathetic.

    I want to know why she was not sympathetic to Mr. Sandidge. The second amendment explicitly says:

    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.

    Well, as we know today, the DC gun ban, the law, was clearly unconstitutional. The individual right to keep and bear arms has been affirmed by the Heller case. Mr. Sandidge's rights were violated. Ms. Kagan had the opportunity to recommend that the Court hear the case, but she did not recommend it.

    Was this recommendation a legal opinion or was it a political opinion" The second amendment is pretty clear: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    During the Clinton administration, Ms. Kagan served as associate White House counsel. The role of the White House counsel's office is to provide the President with the best legal advice possible. This is not a political office.

    According to a 1996 memorandum released by the Clinton Library, Ms. Kagan raised concerns that certain organizations would be exempted from liability under the Volunteer Protection Act. This legislation was aimed at providing protections to volunteers, to nonprofit organizations and governmental entities in lawsuits based on the activities of volunteers.

    In a memorandum she wrote, she branded some of these organizations as ``bad guy orgs.'' I assume that is bad guy organizations. The bad guy organizations she was referring to she listed as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Rifle Association. So in her capacity as counsel to the President, I want to know why she was concerned that the NRA, the National Rifle Association, would be covered in the Volunteer Protection Act. I want to know why she grouped a violent racist hate organization with the NRA. The NRA, the national organization and chapters around the country, is very active in Wyoming. It teaches firearm safety. It advocates for second amendment rights. Again, this gets to the question of whether Ms. Kagan is able to separate politics from policy.

    We have seen Ms. Kagan's resume. Now we need to hear from her. Next week I look forward to hearing her testimony. I also look forward to meeting with Ms. Kagan to discuss these issues and the importance of the second amendment.

    I yield the floor.###

    June 23, 2010


    LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. Military question....Is sex work?
    By Vyrone in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 10:00 AM
  2. Concealed Carry question
    By jc4x4tug in forum Florida Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 07:46 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 08:24 AM
  4. Ethical question
    By Danno in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-11-2008, 05:46 PM
  5. A constitutional question
    By ishi in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 10-29-2007, 04:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast