McCarthy says Obama's foreign dealings as senator possibly illegal
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
In a new best-selling book connecting Islam and Obama-style socialism, a former top terrorism prosecutor chides the national media for failing to investigate Barack Obama's "borderline criminal" activities in Kenya as a U.S. senator.
Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney who investigated the American embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, charges that Obama interfered in Kenya's internal politics possibly in violation of the Logan Act.
The centuries-old law bars Americans who are "without authority of the United States" from conducting relations "with any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States."
In "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America," McCarthy says Obama undermined U.S. relations with a strong anti-terrorism ally in an African region where al-Qaida operates. In 2006, he details in the book how Obama campaigned for a pro-communist candidate running against Nairobi's pro-American government – "in outrageous contravention of U.S. policy and, probably, federal law."
Obama spent six days barnstorming the Kenyan countryside in support of Raila Odinga, the socialist Luo who was seeking the presidency. Appearing with Odinga at campaign stops, Obama gave speeches accusing the sitting Kenyan president of being corrupt and oppressive, leaving the masses in poverty.
Obama's interference "was more than reckless," McCarthy writes. "It was borderline criminal (and that's being generous)."
Earlier, Odinga had visited Obama in the U.S. – in 2004, 2005 and 2006 – and Obama had sent an adviser, Mark Lippert, to Kenya in early 2006 to plan a trip by the senator timed to coincide with Odinga's campaign.
Read about the plans Islam has for America!
McCarthy notes that Obama and Odinga, who named one of his children after Fidel Castro, are "leftist soulmates" whose families go way back. Their fathers belonged to the same Luo tribe – and both Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and the elder Oginga Odinga worked inside the Kenyan government as communist agitators.
There is also an Islamist connection.
On Aug. 29, 2007, Raila Odinga signed a secret Memorandum of Understanding with Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. In exchange for Muslim support, Odinga agreed, among other things, to:
Rewrite the national constitution to install shariah as the law in all "Muslim declared regions."
Elevate Islam as "the only true religion" and give Islamic leaders an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions."
Establish shariah courts in every Kenyan divisional headquarters.
Ban Christian proselytism.
Fire the police commissioner for "allow[ing] himself to be used by heathens and Zionists" to oppress Muslims.
Adopt Islamic dress codes for women.
Ban alcohol and pork.
Even with strong Muslim backing, Odinga (who does business with a wealthy Saudi donor to Osama bin Laden) was defeated in the December 2007 election. But he accused the incumbent president of rigging the vote and incited his supporters to riot in protest.
Over the next month, some 1,500 Kenyans were killed and more than 500,000 displaced – with most of the violence led by Muslims, who set churches ablaze and hacked Christians to death with machetes.
All the while, Odinga was in regular communications with Obama, who publicly called for an end to the violence.
"Odinga's strategy, the extortion strategy of Islamist intimidation, worked to a fare-thee-well," McCarthy notes in his book. To appease his angry mob of supporters, he was named prime minister and allowed to share power with the president.
"With Obama's helping hand, leftists and Islamists had combined forces to overwhelm a constitutional democracy," McCarthy says, while decrying the national media's "stubborn disinterest" in the "stunning" chain of events.
The same alliance can be seen in the U.S., he says, as the Obama administration reaches out to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which according to the FBI, has a plan to infiltrate and sabotage the U.S. from within. Obama and other Alinsky "revolutionaries" are carrying out a similar plan, he maintains.
McCarthy says that while there's no evidence Obama is a practicing Muslim, he shares Muslim Brotherhood hatred for America and "the Muslim Brotherhood's sabotage strategy."
McCarthy says the administration ignores incontrovertible evidence tying Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America to Hamas and other terrorist groups. One of them, he notes, is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which claims to be a benign civil-rights organization.
But he says the recent Holy Land Foundation trial – "and the eye-popping publication of 'Muslim Mafia'" – have exposed CAIR "as a farce." Quoting from "Muslim Mafia" – which he adds is an "important book" – the former top terrorism prosecutor further litigates the case against CAIR's "Hamas-tainted leaders."
In another bombshell, McCarthy reveals that he was dropped from the White House Christmas card list following his criticism of the Bush administration's purging of the words "jihad" and "Islamic terrorism" from the official military and homeland security lexicon.
Like President Bush before him, he says President Obama fails to grasp that Islam is not a "religion of peace" but "a huge part of the problem in combating 'violent extremism,'" which is the new euphemism for Islamic terrorism.
"To be sure, the same ground was staked out by his predecessor, President Bush," McCarthy argues. "They are (both) wrong."
"The need to deal with Islam is unavoidable," he adds, "not because it's an asset, but because it's a liability that can't be written off."
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Felonious assault on U.S. elections
STEAL THE VOTE
Convicts, ACORN pet project may determine country's leadership
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A federal bill that seeks to restore voting rights in national elections to felons released from prison previously was a pet project of the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was briefed on state laws governing voting-rights restoration for former felons encountered during general voter-registration drives.
The information comes as a study released this week by Minnesota Majority, a watchdog group, found the six-month election recount that determined Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate seat may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally.
The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein, reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!
Last summer, the Democracy Restoration Act was introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. The bill would restore federal voting rights to felons who have served their sentences.
In March, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill, reviewing testimony on the subject from the NAACP's Washington bureau director as well as the Brennan Center, a liberal activist group at New York University.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the New York Times published a profile of ACORN agents working to restore voter rights for felons in a number of states. The group also was advising convicted felons on local laws that allowed them to vote.
ACORN, convicted in multiple voter fraud cases, says it disbanded in March due to falling revenues.
The New York Times noted some felony disenfranchisement laws are held over from exclusionary Jim Crow-era laws, such as poll taxes and ballot box literacy tests, affecting about 5.3 million former and current felons nationally.
Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor who served as senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign on criminal justice issues, said he had briefed campaign officials about felony disenfranchisement, including how to register felons.
The Times noted none of the national felony voter registration organizations interviewed by the newspaper were contacted Republican Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign for similar briefs on the issue of registering felons.
Ogletree has been involved in pushing legislation to end felony disenfranchisement.
WND previously reported Ogletree was a mentor of both Barack and Michelle Obama. He has been closely linked to the Black Panthers and to radical black ideology. He is a key member of the reparations movement and once pursued the possibility of bringing a class action lawsuit to win reparations for descendants of African slaves.
Felons gave Franken his seat?
Yesterday, FoxNews.com reported felons who voted illegally may have cast the determining ballots in the Minnesota race that put Franken in office.
An 18-month study by Minnesota Majority found at least 341 convicted felons largely in Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.
After a recount, Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes – fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, charged the Minnesota Majority, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.
The group claimed state and federal authorities were stonewalling efforts for action on its study.
Amnesty to ensure 'progressive' rule
The issue of felony registration is not the only controversy to be attached to Obama's 2008 campaign.
During the campaign, Obama promised to make comprehensive immigration reform a priority. In exchange for his vote on the health-care bill, Obama reiterated that pledge in June to Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, sponsor of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Bill, which seeks to document up to 12 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S.
As WND reported, a recent adviser to Obama whose union group is among the most frequent visitors to the White House, Eliseo Medina, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would expand the "progressive" electorate and help ensure a "progressive" governing coalition for the long term.
Medina, international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, was referring specifically to Gutierrez's bill.
"We reform the immigration laws; it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters," stated Medina, speaking at a June 2009 Washington conference for America's Future Now!
Medina said that during the presidential election in November 2008, Latinos and immigrants "voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up."
"Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? Can you imagine 8 million new voters who care about our issues and will be voting?" Medina asked. "We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
The SEIU is closely linked to ACORN. SEIU's former president, Andrew Stern, was the most frequently logged White House visitor, according to an official list released in October. Medina and the SEIU are top supporters of Gutierrez's comprehensive immigration reform bill.
During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. Also on the council was Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., the co-sponsor of Gutierrez's immigration reform bill . Medina was a chief lobbyist credited with a change in the longstanding policy of the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S. The union reversed its stance against illegal immigration in February 2000, instead calling for new amnesty for millions of illegals.
The New Zeal blog documented how Medina was honored in 2004 by Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America for his "vital role in the AFL-CIO's reassessment of its immigration policy." That year, Medina became a DSA honorary chairman.
The DSA also supported Gutierrez's 1998 bid for Congress. In the mid-1990s, Gutierrez served on the board of Illinois Public Action alongside a number of DSA members, including Obama health-care adviser Quentin Young.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Convicts, ACORN pet project may determine country's leadership
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A federal bill that seeks to restore voting rights in national elections to felons released from prison previously was a pet project of the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was briefed on state laws governing voting-rights restoration for former felons encountered during general voter-registration drives.
The information comes as a study released this week by Minnesota Majority, a watchdog group, found the six-month election recount that determined Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate seat may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally.
The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein, reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!
Last summer, the Democracy Restoration Act was introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. The bill would restore federal voting rights to felons who have served their sentences.
In March, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill, reviewing testimony on the subject from the NAACP's Washington bureau director as well as the Brennan Center, a liberal activist group at New York University.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the New York Times published a profile of ACORN agents working to restore voter rights for felons in a number of states. The group also was advising convicted felons on local laws that allowed them to vote.
ACORN, convicted in multiple voter fraud cases, says it disbanded in March due to falling revenues.
The New York Times noted some felony disenfranchisement laws are held over from exclusionary Jim Crow-era laws, such as poll taxes and ballot box literacy tests, affecting about 5.3 million former and current felons nationally.
Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor who served as senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign on criminal justice issues, said he had briefed campaign officials about felony disenfranchisement, including how to register felons.
The Times noted none of the national felony voter registration organizations interviewed by the newspaper were contacted Republican Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign for similar briefs on the issue of registering felons.
Ogletree has been involved in pushing legislation to end felony disenfranchisement.
WND previously reported Ogletree was a mentor of both Barack and Michelle Obama. He has been closely linked to the Black Panthers and to radical black ideology. He is a key member of the reparations movement and once pursued the possibility of bringing a class action lawsuit to win reparations for descendants of African slaves.
Felons gave Franken his seat?
Yesterday, FoxNews.com reported felons who voted illegally may have cast the determining ballots in the Minnesota race that put Franken in office.
An 18-month study by Minnesota Majority found at least 341 convicted felons largely in Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.
After a recount, Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes – fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, charged the Minnesota Majority, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.
The group claimed state and federal authorities were stonewalling efforts for action on its study.
Amnesty to ensure 'progressive' rule
The issue of felony registration is not the only controversy to be attached to Obama's 2008 campaign.
During the campaign, Obama promised to make comprehensive immigration reform a priority. In exchange for his vote on the health-care bill, Obama reiterated that pledge in June to Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, sponsor of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Bill, which seeks to document up to 12 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S.
As WND reported, a recent adviser to Obama whose union group is among the most frequent visitors to the White House, Eliseo Medina, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would expand the "progressive" electorate and help ensure a "progressive" governing coalition for the long term.
Medina, international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, was referring specifically to Gutierrez's bill.
"We reform the immigration laws; it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters," stated Medina, speaking at a June 2009 Washington conference for America's Future Now!
Medina said that during the presidential election in November 2008, Latinos and immigrants "voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up."
"Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? Can you imagine 8 million new voters who care about our issues and will be voting?" Medina asked. "We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
The SEIU is closely linked to ACORN. SEIU's former president, Andrew Stern, was the most frequently logged White House visitor, according to an official list released in October. Medina and the SEIU are top supporters of Gutierrez's comprehensive immigration reform bill.
During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. Also on the council was Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., the co-sponsor of Gutierrez's immigration reform bill . Medina was a chief lobbyist credited with a change in the longstanding policy of the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S. The union reversed its stance against illegal immigration in February 2000, instead calling for new amnesty for millions of illegals.
The New Zeal blog documented how Medina was honored in 2004 by Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America for his "vital role in the AFL-CIO's reassessment of its immigration policy." That year, Medina became a DSA honorary chairman.
The DSA also supported Gutierrez's 1998 bid for Congress. In the mid-1990s, Gutierrez served on the board of Illinois Public Action alongside a number of DSA members, including Obama health-care adviser Quentin Young.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Signs of the Times
by Thomas Sowell
If you could spend vast amounts of other people's money just by saying a few magic words, wouldn't you be tempted to do it? Barack Obama has spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money just by using the magic words "stimulus" and "jobs."
It doesn't matter politically that the stimulus is not actually stimulating and that the unemployment rate remains up near double-digit levels, despite all the spending and all the rhetoric about jobs. And of course nothing negative will ever matter to those who are part of the Obama cult, including many in the media.
But, for the rest of us, there is a lot to think about in the economic disaster that we are in.
Not only has all the runaway spending and rapid escalation of the deficit to record levels failed to make any real headway in reducing unemployment, all this money pumped into the economy has also failed to produce inflation. The latter is a good thing in itself but its implications are sobering.
How can you pour trillions of dollars into the economy and not even see the price level go up significantly? Economists have long known that it is not just the amount of money, but also the speed with which it circulates, that affects the price level.
Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that the velocity of circulation of money in the American economy has plummeted to its lowest level in half a century. Money that people don't spend does not cause inflation. It also does not stimulate the economy.
The current issue of Bloomberg Businessweek has a feature article about businesses that are just holding on to huge sums of money. They say, for example, that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer is holding on to $26 billion. If so, there should not be any great mystery as to why they don't invest it.
With the Obama administration being on an anti-business kick, boasting of putting their foot on some business' neck, and the president talking about putting his foot on another part of the anatomy, with Congress coming up with more and more red tape, more mandates and more heavy-handed interventions in businesses, would you risk $26 billion that you might not even be able to get back, much less make any money on the deal?
Pfizer is not unique. Banks have cut back on lending, despite all the billions of dollars that were dumped into them in the name of "stimulus." Consumers have also cut back on spending.
For the first time, more gold is being bought as an investment to be held as a hedge against a currently non-existent inflation than is being bought by the makers of jewelry. There may not be any inflation now, but eventually that money is going to start moving, and so will the price level.
Despite a big decline in the amount of gold used to make jewelry, the demand for gold as an investment has risen so steeply as to more than make up for the reduced demand for gold jewelry, and has in fact pushed the price of gold to record high levels.
What does all this say? That people don't know what to expect next from this administration, which seldom lets a month go by without some new anti-business laws, policies or rhetoric.
When you hire somebody in this environment, you know what you have agreed to pay them and what additional costs there may be for their health insurance or other benefits. But you have no way of knowing what additional costs the politicians in Washington are going to impose, when they are constantly coming up with new bright ideas for imposing more mandates on business.
One of the little noticed signs of what is going on has been the increase in the employment of temporary workers. Businesses have been increasingly meeting their need for labor by hiring temporary workers and working their existing employees overtime, instead of hiring new people.
Why? Because temporary workers usually don't get health insurance or other benefits, and working existing employees overtime doesn't add to the cost of their benefits.
There is no free lunch-- and the biggest price of all is paid by people who are unemployed because politicians cannot leave the economy alone to recover, as the American economy has repeatedly recovered faster when left alone than when politicians decided that they have to "do something."
---------------
Thomas Sowell's Biography
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
If you could spend vast amounts of other people's money just by saying a few magic words, wouldn't you be tempted to do it? Barack Obama has spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money just by using the magic words "stimulus" and "jobs."
It doesn't matter politically that the stimulus is not actually stimulating and that the unemployment rate remains up near double-digit levels, despite all the spending and all the rhetoric about jobs. And of course nothing negative will ever matter to those who are part of the Obama cult, including many in the media.
But, for the rest of us, there is a lot to think about in the economic disaster that we are in.
Not only has all the runaway spending and rapid escalation of the deficit to record levels failed to make any real headway in reducing unemployment, all this money pumped into the economy has also failed to produce inflation. The latter is a good thing in itself but its implications are sobering.
How can you pour trillions of dollars into the economy and not even see the price level go up significantly? Economists have long known that it is not just the amount of money, but also the speed with which it circulates, that affects the price level.
Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that the velocity of circulation of money in the American economy has plummeted to its lowest level in half a century. Money that people don't spend does not cause inflation. It also does not stimulate the economy.
The current issue of Bloomberg Businessweek has a feature article about businesses that are just holding on to huge sums of money. They say, for example, that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer is holding on to $26 billion. If so, there should not be any great mystery as to why they don't invest it.
With the Obama administration being on an anti-business kick, boasting of putting their foot on some business' neck, and the president talking about putting his foot on another part of the anatomy, with Congress coming up with more and more red tape, more mandates and more heavy-handed interventions in businesses, would you risk $26 billion that you might not even be able to get back, much less make any money on the deal?
Pfizer is not unique. Banks have cut back on lending, despite all the billions of dollars that were dumped into them in the name of "stimulus." Consumers have also cut back on spending.
For the first time, more gold is being bought as an investment to be held as a hedge against a currently non-existent inflation than is being bought by the makers of jewelry. There may not be any inflation now, but eventually that money is going to start moving, and so will the price level.
Despite a big decline in the amount of gold used to make jewelry, the demand for gold as an investment has risen so steeply as to more than make up for the reduced demand for gold jewelry, and has in fact pushed the price of gold to record high levels.
What does all this say? That people don't know what to expect next from this administration, which seldom lets a month go by without some new anti-business laws, policies or rhetoric.
When you hire somebody in this environment, you know what you have agreed to pay them and what additional costs there may be for their health insurance or other benefits. But you have no way of knowing what additional costs the politicians in Washington are going to impose, when they are constantly coming up with new bright ideas for imposing more mandates on business.
One of the little noticed signs of what is going on has been the increase in the employment of temporary workers. Businesses have been increasingly meeting their need for labor by hiring temporary workers and working their existing employees overtime, instead of hiring new people.
Why? Because temporary workers usually don't get health insurance or other benefits, and working existing employees overtime doesn't add to the cost of their benefits.
There is no free lunch-- and the biggest price of all is paid by people who are unemployed because politicians cannot leave the economy alone to recover, as the American economy has repeatedly recovered faster when left alone than when politicians decided that they have to "do something."
---------------
Thomas Sowell's Biography
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Sunday, July 11, 2010
'Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil'
DEAL OF THE DAY
Author exposes how 'radicals sell us corruption disguised as freedom'
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
It's the book credited with changing the way Americans see the "culture war."
From abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage to multicultural madness to banning God in school, millions of Americans today accept ideas and behaviors that horrified all previous generations. Why?
There is just one book that completely and clearly explains how all this is accomplished – how lies are packaged as truth, corruption disguised as freedom, godlessness sold as liberation – and how we can free ourselves from the deception that surrounds us.
In the age of Obama, more than ever, Americans need to read David Kupelian's modern classic, "The Marketing of Evil," and today only WND readers can get a hardcover, autographed copy for only $4.95 – an incredible $20 discount!
"The Marketing of Evil" has been widely praised by everyone from Dr. Laura Schlessinger to David Limbaugh to Michelle Malkin, with reader-reviewers often claiming they have been "forever changed" and "had their eyes opened" by reading the controversial book.
In one chapter, for example, eight abortion clinic doctors and nurses expose that industry as "barbaric," "evil" and comparable in some ways to the Nazi Holocaust. In another, the marketing vanguard of the modern gay rights movement tells in their own words exactly homosexuality and every other form of sexual anarchy are being mainstreamed.
Depending on their worldview, readers tend to experience powerful aftershocks upon reading "The Marketing of Evil." Here are a few words from critics:
"Worst book ever – he is a liar."
"Frightening and ignorant. The most radical rightwing political book out there – Kupelian markets Nazism in new packaging."
'If you're a hateful, narrow-minded loon, then this book is for you!"
"'The "Marketing of Evil' is one of the more vile right-wing hack jobs to come along lately."
"If you need any evidence at all that the jihadist fervor we're supposedly fighting from Islamic radicals abroad is alive and well in the homeland, look no further than this book."
"Pure evil. A waste of time and money."
Yet, for every negative review like these, there are dozens of other reviews that are not only positive, but fervently passionate about "The Marketing of Evil." Here are a few reviews from Amazon.com:
"It will affect me forever. This is perhaps the best and most freeing book I have ever read on the popular culture at large. It rings true at every level, and has changed the way I view things in the most freeing and encouraging way!! ... An absolute masterpiece!!"
"I finished "The Marketing of Evil" over a month ago. It absolutely changed my life."
"Opening this book is like turning on the Sun. – Mr. David Kupelian has written a remarkable book that reveals how the American public has been taken down the slippery slope of moral relativism."
"Prepare to see your world with new eyes!"
"You will feel a tremendous sense of gratitude for having read this book."
"I like my medicine straight and my truth even straighter, and this book delivers, with no apologies or flinching. – I for one am forever changed."
"David Kupelian has authored a masterpiece that belongs in every home in America next to the Family Bible."
"This book may offend those with a secular, humanistic, left-wing outlook but I feel that it is required reading for our time. Indeed, it is one of the best books that I have read for some time."
"This book really pulls back the veil on evil. A must read for anyone that cares about the future of our nation."
But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. While the offer lasts, when you order your autographed, hardcover copy of "The Marketing of Evil" for only $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower, which prominently features Kupelian's latest writings.
Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best newsmagazine. Each issue, which prominently features Kupelian's latest writings, focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."
So, for $4.95 you get a hardcover autographed copy of Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil," plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.
(Note: This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have a fantastic offer for you to check out!)
Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charge the low annual renewal rate of $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of "The Marketing of Evil" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)
Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically for only $39.95. As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.
Order your copy of David Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" for just $4.95 – and enjoy all the extras on us! But do it now, because this offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.
Author exposes how 'radicals sell us corruption disguised as freedom'
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
It's the book credited with changing the way Americans see the "culture war."
From abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage to multicultural madness to banning God in school, millions of Americans today accept ideas and behaviors that horrified all previous generations. Why?
There is just one book that completely and clearly explains how all this is accomplished – how lies are packaged as truth, corruption disguised as freedom, godlessness sold as liberation – and how we can free ourselves from the deception that surrounds us.
In the age of Obama, more than ever, Americans need to read David Kupelian's modern classic, "The Marketing of Evil," and today only WND readers can get a hardcover, autographed copy for only $4.95 – an incredible $20 discount!
"The Marketing of Evil" has been widely praised by everyone from Dr. Laura Schlessinger to David Limbaugh to Michelle Malkin, with reader-reviewers often claiming they have been "forever changed" and "had their eyes opened" by reading the controversial book.
In one chapter, for example, eight abortion clinic doctors and nurses expose that industry as "barbaric," "evil" and comparable in some ways to the Nazi Holocaust. In another, the marketing vanguard of the modern gay rights movement tells in their own words exactly homosexuality and every other form of sexual anarchy are being mainstreamed.
Depending on their worldview, readers tend to experience powerful aftershocks upon reading "The Marketing of Evil." Here are a few words from critics:
"Worst book ever – he is a liar."
"Frightening and ignorant. The most radical rightwing political book out there – Kupelian markets Nazism in new packaging."
'If you're a hateful, narrow-minded loon, then this book is for you!"
"'The "Marketing of Evil' is one of the more vile right-wing hack jobs to come along lately."
"If you need any evidence at all that the jihadist fervor we're supposedly fighting from Islamic radicals abroad is alive and well in the homeland, look no further than this book."
"Pure evil. A waste of time and money."
Yet, for every negative review like these, there are dozens of other reviews that are not only positive, but fervently passionate about "The Marketing of Evil." Here are a few reviews from Amazon.com:
"It will affect me forever. This is perhaps the best and most freeing book I have ever read on the popular culture at large. It rings true at every level, and has changed the way I view things in the most freeing and encouraging way!! ... An absolute masterpiece!!"
"I finished "The Marketing of Evil" over a month ago. It absolutely changed my life."
"Opening this book is like turning on the Sun. – Mr. David Kupelian has written a remarkable book that reveals how the American public has been taken down the slippery slope of moral relativism."
"Prepare to see your world with new eyes!"
"You will feel a tremendous sense of gratitude for having read this book."
"I like my medicine straight and my truth even straighter, and this book delivers, with no apologies or flinching. – I for one am forever changed."
"David Kupelian has authored a masterpiece that belongs in every home in America next to the Family Bible."
"This book may offend those with a secular, humanistic, left-wing outlook but I feel that it is required reading for our time. Indeed, it is one of the best books that I have read for some time."
"This book really pulls back the veil on evil. A must read for anyone that cares about the future of our nation."
But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. While the offer lasts, when you order your autographed, hardcover copy of "The Marketing of Evil" for only $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower, which prominently features Kupelian's latest writings.
Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best newsmagazine. Each issue, which prominently features Kupelian's latest writings, focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."
So, for $4.95 you get a hardcover autographed copy of Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil," plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.
(Note: This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have a fantastic offer for you to check out!)
Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charge the low annual renewal rate of $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of "The Marketing of Evil" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)
Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically for only $39.95. As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.
Order your copy of David Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" for just $4.95 – and enjoy all the extras on us! But do it now, because this offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Analyst: Obama has U.S. economy in 'death spiral'
ON CAPITOL HILL
'Simple math' confirms unemployment won't be solved by government hiring
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A new analysis of the U.S. economy shows that since 2007, the private sector has lost 10.5 million jobs while the public sector has added 720,000 jobs, creating a "death spiral" for the nation's economy.
The study comes from The Free Enterprise Nation, a nonpartisan national membership/advocacy organization for individuals and businesses that make up the private sector.
The analysis was done using statistics about employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Don't wait until a collapse happens, get "Killing Wealth Freeing Wealth: How to Save America's Economy and Your Own" now!
The recession of the last two years exacerbated the larger problem that already was in place, it revealed.
Among the changes were California's loss of 665,800 jobs in the private sector. But government in the Golden State added 163,800 jobs.
Also, Michigan lost 791,700 private-sector jobs, a "staggering" 20 percent. Government bureaucracies, however, kept all but 7 percent of their positions.
Jim MacDougald, president and CEO of The Free Enterprise Nation, recently appeared on the Fox News Channel to talk about a new campaign called "I own you."
Among the changes were California's loss of 665,800 jobs in the private sector. But government in the Golden State added 163,800 jobs.
Further:
North Carolina showed a 10-year loss of 138,200 private-sector jobs, or 4 percent of its private-sector workforce, while adding 127,100 government jobs, a 20 percent increase.
Colorado's population increased by 17 percent in the past decade while losing 3 percent of its private-sector jobs. Government employment increased by more than 17 percent during the same time frame.
Tennessee lost 157,300 private-sector jobs while adding 13,900 in government agencies.
While Texas added 616,000 private-sector jobs, it also added 295,200 government jobs, almost one bureaucratic position for every two positions in private enterprise.
Florida also added private-sector jobs overall – 39,600. But it also added 127,100 government positions.
Massachusetts lost 168,700 private-sector jobs but still found the need to add 7,500 government jobs.
Wisconsin lost 149,400 private-sector jobs; added 22,300 to government payrolls.
"The consequence of this employment shift is that a smaller number of private-sector employers and workers are saddled with the tax burden of financially supporting a growing government workforce," said MacDougald.
"Since public-sector workers are paid more on average in compensation and benefits than private-sector workers, it is financially unsustainable for the government to continue to grow while the private-sector workforce shrinks," he said.
He explained to WND that while the problem is massive, there is the potential for a solution.
"There are 89,000 taxpayer-supported entities that make up the 'public sector,' and no one is in charge of their collective efforts. About one-half of the 22 million public-sector workers are in public education. (And only about one-half of the people employed in public education are teachers!)" he said.
"It is possible that the federal government thinks it can solve the unemployment problem by hiring more people, but, if so, it would be another indication of just how far removed from reality the federal government's economic policies are," he said.
"Our population grew by 25 million from 2000 to 2010. We needed to create at least 20 million new jobs. Instead, we lost 3 million in the private sector. The 'shortfall' of 23 million jobs could not possibly be made up by government hiring, as they would have to double in size in order to do so," he said.
The real problem is not necessarily with the number of government jobs but the cost of their "huge pensions, early retirement and health-insurance benefits."
"That is where the real 'cost of government' is," he continued. "As numbers of workers in the private sector decrease, and public-sector hiring increases, it places an impossible burden on those individuals and businesses left who actually pay taxes.
"Unfortunately, the current approach is to charge more taxes to those who actually pay federal income taxes (one-half of tax filers), and businesses. Businesses (employers) have no choice but to reduce overhead, which means fewer domestic workers. A death spiral," he warned.
The solution would be a hard pill to swallow for many, he warned.
Among the moves that would help would be to terminate all government pension plans, "vesting everyone 100 percent in benefits accrued to date." Pensions could be replaced with a type of 401(k) retirement plan that is funded by employer contributions.
Then there would be need for a hard look at what government actually does.
"Do we NEED government to do that for us? If not, stop doing it," he said.
Next would be to ignore – or better yet banish – public-sector unions.
A "zero-based" staffing and budget plan would require officials to review what work is required and how many workers are needed to do it.
"Public policy-makers must ask: How many people do we NEED to do what we are hired to do? Do we really NEED one administrative/management employee for every teacher? Once those questions have been asked and answered, we must rebuild each public-sector entity from scratch," he said.
"We have to 'reinvent' the public sector, based on a fundamental requirement that it serves the taxpayer, not the other way around. It is a huge job to do, and it will take years. There is no silver bullet. But it can be done," he said.
WND columnist Dan Mangru also has criticized the government's "fuzzy math".
And longtime top-rated radio talk-show host Roger Hedgecock said more and more federal spending just depresses the economy.
"Three professors at the Harvard Business School, in a study titled 'Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?' have concluded, based on 40 years of data, that federal government spending does not stimulate local business spending. In fact, the opposite occurred. The more federal spending, the less corporate spending," he reported.
"And the same results show up whether the state is large or small, whether the firms are large or small over a period of 40 years. In fact, the study shows the results 'most pronounced in geographically concentrated firms and within the industries that are the target of the spending.' In plain speech, federal 'bacon' is toxic to economic growth in the private sector," he wrote.
'Simple math' confirms unemployment won't be solved by government hiring
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A new analysis of the U.S. economy shows that since 2007, the private sector has lost 10.5 million jobs while the public sector has added 720,000 jobs, creating a "death spiral" for the nation's economy.
The study comes from The Free Enterprise Nation, a nonpartisan national membership/advocacy organization for individuals and businesses that make up the private sector.
The analysis was done using statistics about employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Don't wait until a collapse happens, get "Killing Wealth Freeing Wealth: How to Save America's Economy and Your Own" now!
The recession of the last two years exacerbated the larger problem that already was in place, it revealed.
Among the changes were California's loss of 665,800 jobs in the private sector. But government in the Golden State added 163,800 jobs.
Also, Michigan lost 791,700 private-sector jobs, a "staggering" 20 percent. Government bureaucracies, however, kept all but 7 percent of their positions.
Jim MacDougald, president and CEO of The Free Enterprise Nation, recently appeared on the Fox News Channel to talk about a new campaign called "I own you."
Among the changes were California's loss of 665,800 jobs in the private sector. But government in the Golden State added 163,800 jobs.
Further:
North Carolina showed a 10-year loss of 138,200 private-sector jobs, or 4 percent of its private-sector workforce, while adding 127,100 government jobs, a 20 percent increase.
Colorado's population increased by 17 percent in the past decade while losing 3 percent of its private-sector jobs. Government employment increased by more than 17 percent during the same time frame.
Tennessee lost 157,300 private-sector jobs while adding 13,900 in government agencies.
While Texas added 616,000 private-sector jobs, it also added 295,200 government jobs, almost one bureaucratic position for every two positions in private enterprise.
Florida also added private-sector jobs overall – 39,600. But it also added 127,100 government positions.
Massachusetts lost 168,700 private-sector jobs but still found the need to add 7,500 government jobs.
Wisconsin lost 149,400 private-sector jobs; added 22,300 to government payrolls.
"The consequence of this employment shift is that a smaller number of private-sector employers and workers are saddled with the tax burden of financially supporting a growing government workforce," said MacDougald.
"Since public-sector workers are paid more on average in compensation and benefits than private-sector workers, it is financially unsustainable for the government to continue to grow while the private-sector workforce shrinks," he said.
He explained to WND that while the problem is massive, there is the potential for a solution.
"There are 89,000 taxpayer-supported entities that make up the 'public sector,' and no one is in charge of their collective efforts. About one-half of the 22 million public-sector workers are in public education. (And only about one-half of the people employed in public education are teachers!)" he said.
"It is possible that the federal government thinks it can solve the unemployment problem by hiring more people, but, if so, it would be another indication of just how far removed from reality the federal government's economic policies are," he said.
"Our population grew by 25 million from 2000 to 2010. We needed to create at least 20 million new jobs. Instead, we lost 3 million in the private sector. The 'shortfall' of 23 million jobs could not possibly be made up by government hiring, as they would have to double in size in order to do so," he said.
The real problem is not necessarily with the number of government jobs but the cost of their "huge pensions, early retirement and health-insurance benefits."
"That is where the real 'cost of government' is," he continued. "As numbers of workers in the private sector decrease, and public-sector hiring increases, it places an impossible burden on those individuals and businesses left who actually pay taxes.
"Unfortunately, the current approach is to charge more taxes to those who actually pay federal income taxes (one-half of tax filers), and businesses. Businesses (employers) have no choice but to reduce overhead, which means fewer domestic workers. A death spiral," he warned.
The solution would be a hard pill to swallow for many, he warned.
Among the moves that would help would be to terminate all government pension plans, "vesting everyone 100 percent in benefits accrued to date." Pensions could be replaced with a type of 401(k) retirement plan that is funded by employer contributions.
Then there would be need for a hard look at what government actually does.
"Do we NEED government to do that for us? If not, stop doing it," he said.
Next would be to ignore – or better yet banish – public-sector unions.
A "zero-based" staffing and budget plan would require officials to review what work is required and how many workers are needed to do it.
"Public policy-makers must ask: How many people do we NEED to do what we are hired to do? Do we really NEED one administrative/management employee for every teacher? Once those questions have been asked and answered, we must rebuild each public-sector entity from scratch," he said.
"We have to 'reinvent' the public sector, based on a fundamental requirement that it serves the taxpayer, not the other way around. It is a huge job to do, and it will take years. There is no silver bullet. But it can be done," he said.
WND columnist Dan Mangru also has criticized the government's "fuzzy math".
And longtime top-rated radio talk-show host Roger Hedgecock said more and more federal spending just depresses the economy.
"Three professors at the Harvard Business School, in a study titled 'Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?' have concluded, based on 40 years of data, that federal government spending does not stimulate local business spending. In fact, the opposite occurred. The more federal spending, the less corporate spending," he reported.
"And the same results show up whether the state is large or small, whether the firms are large or small over a period of 40 years. In fact, the study shows the results 'most pronounced in geographically concentrated firms and within the industries that are the target of the spending.' In plain speech, federal 'bacon' is toxic to economic growth in the private sector," he wrote.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Hyper-Partisan Elena Kagan’s Road to the High Court
by Gary Bauer
In introducing his last Supreme Court nominee 13 months ago, President Obama gushed forth like an out-of-control oil spill about what he saw as Sonia Sotomayor’s main qualification—her “wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey.”
Obama lavishly praised her “distinguished career,” which included having worked “at almost every level of our judicial system.” All this courtroom time, he assured us, provided Sotomayor “with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice.”
“Walking in the door,” he continued, “she would bring more experience on the bench and more varied experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed.”
Not surprisingly, in introducing Elena Kagan as his nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, Obama spent a great deal less time touting her judicial experience—that’s because she has none. Obama did, however, refer to Kagan as a “trailblazing leader.”
And in one sense, he’s right. Kagan would be a pioneer of sorts, at least among the current justices. She would be the first Supreme Court justice who has spent his or her life not applying the law but rather crassly manipulating it for political ends.
Remember the to-do about John Roberts’ wife’s affiliation with the non-partisan Feminists for Life? Well, Kagan’s resume overflows with left-wing politics.
She’s worked in academia and as an advocate and policy advisor in two Democratic administrations and on Democratic political campaigns. And, as the Boston Herald put it, she’s been a “faithful Democratic donor over the past decade, lavishing nearly $15,000 on candidates from Barack Obama to Al Gore.”
Kagan’s professed heroes include Barack Obama as well as unabashed judicial activists Thurgood Marshall and Aharon Barak, the former Israeli Supreme Court president.
Given her partisan background, it is not surprising that Kagan spent all week promising that as a Supreme Court justice she would set her political views aside. “My politics would be—have to be—separate from my judging,” she assured Judiciary Committee senators on Tuesday.
No senator on the committee can believe her claim is credible. A justice Kagan would be a vote for same-sex marriage, a vote against the 2nd Amendment, a vote against religious freedom and a vote upholding Obama’s take-over of healthcare. She will vote this way not because the Constitution demands it but because her left-wing ideology does.
Her career has been defined by manipulating the law for political ends. And, as research by Americans United for Life shows, it is a tendency most evident in Kagan’s handling of abortion.
Kagan’s time clerking for Justice Marshall seems to have been about the closest she’s ever been to a courtroom. But she spent much of her time with Marshall, whom she called “a hero of American law” and whose constitutional interpretation she has described as “a thing of glory,” making political calculations.
In her confirmation hearing for solicitor general, she explained that her job as a clerk for Marshall was not to brief her boss on the law. Rather, she said, her job was to “enable him to advance his goals and purposes as a justice.” That’s revealing given that Marshall famously believed that the role of a judge was to “do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”
In 1988, Kagan wrote in a memo to Marshall that she believed lower courts were legally wrong in holding that female prison inmates could have their abortions paid for by taxpayers. But, because she thought the law was “well-intentioned” (read: would produce more abortions), she recommended that Marshall vote against reviewing the case because it “is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion.”
And for her “bad law” meant law that did not advance abortion.
Partisanship also triumphed during her time working in the Clinton Administration. She assisted Clinton on his position against the Hyde Amendment and in favor of federal funding of abortion.
And she allowed politics to trump the law on partial-birth abortion. When Clinton offered tentative support for a very limited partial-birth abortion ban, Kagan argued that if he supported a ban that didn’t include a hollow “health exception,” “the [pro-abortion] groups will go crazy.”
She also advised Clinton that though she felt the partial-birth abortion ban was unconstitutional, he should support a compromise amendment for political gain, “in order,” she wrote to her boss, “to sustain your credibility on [the partial-birth abortion act] and prevent Congress from overriding your veto.”
Most egregiously, Kagan manipulated an opinion from a select panel of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that stated that partial-birth abortion was never necessary to protect the life or health of a woman.
The initial draft stated that the ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure…would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” But Kagan noted in a memo that ACOG’s statement “would be a disaster—not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the [partial-birth abortion] legislation.”
So, as attorney Shannen Coffin has noted, Kagan wrote “suggested options” for modifying the ACOG position statement. These included having the Clinton Administration claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate” option.
That crucial language was inserted into the AGOG policy statement, which the ACOG executive board then dutifully copied—word for word—into its final statement.
Kagan’s agenda-driven past is rejected by most Americans. Polls consistently show that vast majorities of Americans want judges who follow the law and are not driven by their own agendas.
There’s been much debate over the last few weeks about whether Elena Kagan is “in the mainstream of current legal thought.” But her record indicates that her thoughts aren’t principally about the law at all. Rather, after years saturated in partisan politics, they habitually focus on how she can exploit the law for political ends.
-------
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
In introducing his last Supreme Court nominee 13 months ago, President Obama gushed forth like an out-of-control oil spill about what he saw as Sonia Sotomayor’s main qualification—her “wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey.”
Obama lavishly praised her “distinguished career,” which included having worked “at almost every level of our judicial system.” All this courtroom time, he assured us, provided Sotomayor “with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice.”
“Walking in the door,” he continued, “she would bring more experience on the bench and more varied experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed.”
Not surprisingly, in introducing Elena Kagan as his nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, Obama spent a great deal less time touting her judicial experience—that’s because she has none. Obama did, however, refer to Kagan as a “trailblazing leader.”
And in one sense, he’s right. Kagan would be a pioneer of sorts, at least among the current justices. She would be the first Supreme Court justice who has spent his or her life not applying the law but rather crassly manipulating it for political ends.
Remember the to-do about John Roberts’ wife’s affiliation with the non-partisan Feminists for Life? Well, Kagan’s resume overflows with left-wing politics.
She’s worked in academia and as an advocate and policy advisor in two Democratic administrations and on Democratic political campaigns. And, as the Boston Herald put it, she’s been a “faithful Democratic donor over the past decade, lavishing nearly $15,000 on candidates from Barack Obama to Al Gore.”
Kagan’s professed heroes include Barack Obama as well as unabashed judicial activists Thurgood Marshall and Aharon Barak, the former Israeli Supreme Court president.
Given her partisan background, it is not surprising that Kagan spent all week promising that as a Supreme Court justice she would set her political views aside. “My politics would be—have to be—separate from my judging,” she assured Judiciary Committee senators on Tuesday.
No senator on the committee can believe her claim is credible. A justice Kagan would be a vote for same-sex marriage, a vote against the 2nd Amendment, a vote against religious freedom and a vote upholding Obama’s take-over of healthcare. She will vote this way not because the Constitution demands it but because her left-wing ideology does.
Her career has been defined by manipulating the law for political ends. And, as research by Americans United for Life shows, it is a tendency most evident in Kagan’s handling of abortion.
Kagan’s time clerking for Justice Marshall seems to have been about the closest she’s ever been to a courtroom. But she spent much of her time with Marshall, whom she called “a hero of American law” and whose constitutional interpretation she has described as “a thing of glory,” making political calculations.
In her confirmation hearing for solicitor general, she explained that her job as a clerk for Marshall was not to brief her boss on the law. Rather, she said, her job was to “enable him to advance his goals and purposes as a justice.” That’s revealing given that Marshall famously believed that the role of a judge was to “do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”
In 1988, Kagan wrote in a memo to Marshall that she believed lower courts were legally wrong in holding that female prison inmates could have their abortions paid for by taxpayers. But, because she thought the law was “well-intentioned” (read: would produce more abortions), she recommended that Marshall vote against reviewing the case because it “is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion.”
And for her “bad law” meant law that did not advance abortion.
Partisanship also triumphed during her time working in the Clinton Administration. She assisted Clinton on his position against the Hyde Amendment and in favor of federal funding of abortion.
And she allowed politics to trump the law on partial-birth abortion. When Clinton offered tentative support for a very limited partial-birth abortion ban, Kagan argued that if he supported a ban that didn’t include a hollow “health exception,” “the [pro-abortion] groups will go crazy.”
She also advised Clinton that though she felt the partial-birth abortion ban was unconstitutional, he should support a compromise amendment for political gain, “in order,” she wrote to her boss, “to sustain your credibility on [the partial-birth abortion act] and prevent Congress from overriding your veto.”
Most egregiously, Kagan manipulated an opinion from a select panel of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that stated that partial-birth abortion was never necessary to protect the life or health of a woman.
The initial draft stated that the ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure…would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” But Kagan noted in a memo that ACOG’s statement “would be a disaster—not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the [partial-birth abortion] legislation.”
So, as attorney Shannen Coffin has noted, Kagan wrote “suggested options” for modifying the ACOG position statement. These included having the Clinton Administration claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate” option.
That crucial language was inserted into the AGOG policy statement, which the ACOG executive board then dutifully copied—word for word—into its final statement.
Kagan’s agenda-driven past is rejected by most Americans. Polls consistently show that vast majorities of Americans want judges who follow the law and are not driven by their own agendas.
There’s been much debate over the last few weeks about whether Elena Kagan is “in the mainstream of current legal thought.” But her record indicates that her thoughts aren’t principally about the law at all. Rather, after years saturated in partisan politics, they habitually focus on how she can exploit the law for political ends.
-------
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)