Kagan’s “unique experience” for the Court

posted at 9:30 am on May 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Today’s Washington Post profile of Elena Kagan attempts to answer the criticism of Kagan’s lack of experience for the Supreme Court, both as a judge (which she has never been) and in actual law practice, which she has mostly eschewed for politics and academia.  However, if Alec MacGillis intended on assuaging fears of Kagan’s impact on the court, the article instead substantiates the biggest suspicions of her critics.  The “unique experience” of Kagan comes from trying to get results in the “imperfect system” of legislation and executive enforcement.  Guess what that means?

If the Senate confirms Elena Kagan, she would serve on a Supreme Court that is likely to take on big questions regarding the powers of the federal government, notably the constitutionality of President Obama‘s health-care overhaul.

But Kagan would bring a perspective in short supply on the bench: firsthand experience in the White House amid the bureaucratic and political constraints of government. Records from her years as deputy domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House suggest that she received a strong lesson in the mundane realities of government: the internal conflicts, the pressures of public opinion, the constant settling for the less than ideal.

The White House she belonged to between 1995 and 1999 took a view of government as a tool to improve people’s lives. But it also had a keen sense of limits; it had been reined in after the Clinton health-care plan failed and Republicans won control of Congress in 1994 and was, with exceptions, keeping in check its ambitions even before the distraction in 1998 of the Monica S. Lewinsky affair. …

Paul Light, an expert on the federal government at New York University, said Kagan’s White House experience would be most valuable in an area in which the court often seems to lack understanding: the executive branch’s challenge in implementing the sometimes vague language of legislation.

“Having a basic understanding of the messiness of government is useful,” he said. “It gives you some grounding. She knows what it’s like to get something done in a system that impedes breakthroughs at every corner. . . . Having someone who understands the frustration of running something would be helpful to the court.”

How exactly would that be helpful?  After all, the Court is supposed to be limited by the same Constitution and the same laws passed by Congress that limit the executive branch’s authority as well.  It’s not the Court’s responsibility to make the system perfect, but to ensure that the legislature and the executive don’t intrude on the authority of the other, and that both don’t intrude on the rights of Americans.

Theoretically, that’s true.  For some, though, that theory is just that — a pretense one holds while pushing the Court to make the changes that politicians either cannot or will not make themselves.  This kind of experience in the flawed process of governing only becomes germane if Kagan wants to use the Court to “perfect” the government through judicial activism.  It’s a call to have Kagan become a high priest rather than a jurist, and a lawgiver rather than a judge.

Otherwise, the Court is already well versed on how imperfect governance can be, having to hear case after case involving government overreach and failure each and every session.  As a moment’s thought would reveal, the Supreme Court deals in almost nothing but issues of imperfection in government operation in some form or another.  Absent the implicit push for judicial activism, this defense of Kagan is completely irrelevant.

If Kagan wants to be a lawgiver, let her run for public office.  If we want real-world experience on the court, then Barack Obama should appoint someone who hasn’t spent the last twenty years in the White House and in Academia.  But if Obama wants a judicial activist who has no connection to the private sector, it seems the Washington Post profile paints a picture of just the right choice.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Here’s my one and only question. If it’s not Kagan, who can we realistically expect to get? Obama seems intent on packing the court with yes… uh… yes-women it looks like.

Red Cloud on May 14, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Paul Light, an expert on the federal government…

What does that even mean? Apparently, with this descriptor we are just supposed to accept everything he says as irrefutable.

DrMagnolias on May 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM

I just love the hypocrisy….Palin is not qualified to work at 7-11 but Obama and Kagan and any other liberal that has been appointed to various jobs with zero expertise are OK.

search4truth on May 14, 2010 at 9:38 AM

The gop had better stretch these hearings out as long as they can.This country is headed down a very dangerous road and the ones in Wash. who don’t fight this ….well let’s just say,waterboarding is too good for them! America can’t wait for the Christie’s and whoever else for 4 yrs.We need someone in 2012 who will fight the system tooth an nail.

ohiobabe on May 14, 2010 at 9:38 AM

It would be nice, if she’d had just one job in her life, where a person can’t get away with having their head up their arse. All of her past jobs allowed it, and some encouraged it.

RBMN on May 14, 2010 at 9:39 AM

“Having a basic understanding of the messiness of government is useful,” he said. “It gives you some grounding. She knows what it’s like to get something done in a system that impedes breakthroughs at every corner. . . . Having someone who understands the frustration of running something would be helpful to the court.”

So, the argument here from WaPo for her to go to the SCOTUS is that she can function in a bureacracy…? Who the eff cares, she’s a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats bemoaning and plodding through the realities of bureacracies does not a SCOTUS justice make.

ted c on May 14, 2010 at 9:39 AM

In Opposite-Land, having a pulse is the only qualification. Actual experience is to be avoided, or endlessly mocked if actually encountered. That is how we ended up with a yo-yo like Barry in the first place. It has been his habit to appoint equally inept cronies, and the Kagan nomination is simply a continuation of that policy.

Soon he will mandate that farmers irrigate crops with Gatorade.

CantCureStupid on May 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Who’s up for an American Idol marathon? Oh, wait…what the hell am I thinking…? The Kagan hearings will provide that.

Fletch54 on May 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM

DrMagnolias on May 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM

I had the same thought.

truetexan on May 14, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Unique,as in,no experience!!

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 9:41 AM

The White House she belonged to between 1995 and 1999 took a view of government as a tool to improve people’s lives.

No. That is the Progressive view, but the United States of America was founded on a different principle:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Government exists to secure our rights, not to let some self-righteous snobs who think they are better than the rest of us decide what is in our best interests and use the force of government to dictate to us how to live our lives.

rbj on May 14, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Unique experience?

The Obama administration is saying that because Kagan has experience in academia (ideology) and in the executive branch of government (political) she brings diversity to the Supreme Court.

Think about it. Obama wants to put a ideologue/politician on the supreme court to make decisions for political/ideological reasons.

If you had to go to court would you want the presiding judge to make decisions on your case for political reasons?

Skandia Recluse on May 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM

search4truth on May 14, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Word. Nothing else to say.

Bishop on May 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Here’s my one and only question. If it’s not Kagan, who can we realistically expect to get? Obama seems intent on packing the court with yes… uh… yes-women it looks like.

Red Cloud on May 14, 2010 at 9:33 AM

He’s going to try and get a hack on the court no matter what, but the timing of the vote could determine whether they get rejected or not.

If the Kagan nomination gets held up for a while and then rejected, his next nomination would likely come in the run-up to the November elections. That’s exactly what Senate Dems DO NOT want, especially those looking at an unusually tough re-election campaign.

Having to push for the confirmation of a judge seen as unqualified by the masses, successfully or not, could be the stake through the heart of re-election campaigns for Reid, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, etc.

teke184 on May 14, 2010 at 9:45 AM

questions regarding the powers of the federal government, notably the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care overhaul.
=========================================

Kagan’s 2001 article “Presidential Administration,” published in the Harvard Law Review, was named the year’s top scholarly article by the American Bar Association’s Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice. Declaring an “era of presidential administration,” the paper examines how the three previous presidents exercised increasingly direct authority over federal agencies; she argues that in this way, Bill Clinton – unlike his de-regulatory predecessors – advanced his own progressive and pro-regulatory political agenda.
========================================

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I wonder how the court would function after Roberts dressed her down in the Citizens United decision:

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts.

“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Pretty stiff stuff …

She sure is no friend of the First nor the Second Amendment. And why doesn’t that alone provoke a definite NO from anybody but Sen Inhofe so far? Questions, lots of questions.

tarpon on May 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Elena Kagan (pronounced /ˈkeɪɡən/; born April 28, 1960)[1] is the Solicitor General of the United States and currently nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate White House Counsel and later policy adviser under President Clinton. After a failed nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, she became a professor at Harvard Law School and was later named its Dean.

She was appointed Solicitor General by President Obama on January 26, 2009. On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the Supreme Court’s 2009/2010 term.[3][4]
=========================================================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan-

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM

If Kagan wants to be a lawgiver, let her run for Moses public office.

Lawgiver?

Akzed on May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Cut the Post some slack, Ed. They’re just reprinting the official release from the WH Office of Propaganda and “Information.”

NoLeftTurn on May 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Paul Light, an expert on the federal government…

What does that even mean? Apparently, with this descriptor we are just supposed to accept everything he says as irrefutable.

DrMagnolias on May 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM

It’s Ellie Light, post-op.

John Deaux on May 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Presidential Administration By Elena Kagan (PDF)
==========================================================

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/upload/KaganSG-Question13A-Part9.pdf

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 10:02 AM

“Having a basic understanding of the messiness of government is useful,” he said. “

Seems to me, that would be helpful in a President, along with actual executive experience.

But we don’t have that, do we?

This is nonsense, no matter what “experience” she has, you can make it sound useful to being a Supreme Court Justice.

I’ve had it with the clever spin. If you have to come up with a complicated explanation for something like this, maybe that’s a big red flag that the experience is not really there.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM

The White House she belonged to between 1995 and 1999 took a view of government as a tool to improve people’s lives.

This is where the “danger” lies between the executive and judicial branches of government. By whose guidelines and philosophies/ideologies is this “tool” developed? What are the boundries all Americans expect with respect to privacy? When does the governments intention to “improve people’s lives” become intrusive, or worst unjust?

Rovin on May 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM

E-Mails concerning the Solomon Amendment-Elena Kagan(PDF)
============================================

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/upload/KaganSG-Question13A-Part22.pdf

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 10:09 AM

It would be nice, if she’d Obama had just one job in her his life, where a person can’t get away with having their head up their arse. All of her his past jobs allowed it, and some encouraged it.

RBMN on May 14, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Johan Klaus on May 14, 2010 at 10:11 AM

The “unique experience” of Kagan comes from trying to get results in the “imperfect system” of legislation and executive enforcement. Guess what that means?

Violations galore of the separation of powers?

Branch Rickey on May 14, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Constitutional Law Course Outline,by,Elena Kagan,
Spring term 2000(PDF)
==================================================

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/upload/KaganSG-Question18-Part2.pdf

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 10:16 AM

If the Kagan nomination gets held up for a while and then rejected, his next nomination would likely come in the run-up to the November elections. That’s exactly what Senate Dems DO NOT want, especially those looking at an unusually tough re-election campaign…

teke184 on May 14, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Good analysis, however, let me offer this: From what I’ve read,Kagan has extraordinary people skills (suck-up) but she’s not a very good lawyer in spite of her top-flight legal training. It’s been reported that she would be the intellectual counter on the left to Scalia et al. But, again, from what I’ve read of her performances before the court as Solicitor General, she’s a bad lawyer and may prove to be an embarrassment on the court. So it may be better for GOP senators (except the Maine Twins, of course)
to quietly vote “NO” and keep their powder dry in case, God forbid, a conservative court seat comes open under Obama.

Just sayin’…but you have a strong argument, soo…

cartooner on May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

GOP has to draw a line in the sand against socialism.

I say bloody her up as the radical that she is. Dems have acted like jackals in the Senate Judiciary Committee for years. Harp on the socialism and opposition to the First and Second Amendment ad nauseam. If Obama and Dems can get her through a filibuster, fine. But air her dirty laundry out during the entire summer so that Democratic senators and Democratic senatorial challengers have to answer for putting this un-American POS on the Supreme Court for 25 years or more. Don’t forget to tie her to Ponzicare and other scary governmental intrusions into our lives.

BuckeyeSam on May 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Do you mean to tell us that she might not really be a “secret centrist”, after all?

[/megasarc]

Cylor on May 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Quite simply, Barry has picked a socialist. Go figure.

GarandFan on May 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Cut the Post some slack, Ed. They’re just reprinting the official release from the WH Office of Propaganda and mis“Information.”

NoLeftTurn on May 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Johan Klaus on May 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

What a stupid argument. It might be somewhat valid for a district court judge, but it is ridiculous for an appellate judge. Appeals should turn only on what the law says and what was meant by those who made the law. What difference does it make how the government works and policy is decided? None.

What concerns me about this argument is that Obama and Kagan’s defenders expect her to use this “policymaking experience” to invent entirely new meanings of federal statutes and Congressional intent based on her supposedly superior knowledge of “how the sausage is made.” I can see some pretty big fireworks ensuing between her and Justice Scalia on this. He is an absolutist about Congressional intent – if they didn’t write it, they didn’t mean it, and it isn’t the law and can’t be the law. Congress has every opportunity to say what it wants in a law, and in report language to further explain and elaborate. If Congress chooses not to say something in a statute, that’s clear evidence that it didn’t want it in the law, and if the litigants want a different outcome they need to get Congress to change the law, not get the Supreme Court to remake the law. But I can see Kagan opining that “Congress really wanted to do X but they had to do Y because of political expediency.” You talk about a slippery slope, man, there it is.

rockmom on May 14, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V.
by Elena Kagan(PDF).
===================================

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/upload/KaganSG-Question13A-Part11.pdf

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

The “unique experience” of Kagan comes from trying to get results in the “imperfect system” of legislation and executive enforcement. Guess what that means?

Kagan’s White House experience would be most valuable in an area in which the court often seems to lack understanding: the executive branch’s challenge in implementing the sometimes vague language of legislation.

Questions for the Senate hearing: What did she know and when did she know it about Obama’s healthcare bill boondoggle? If she ends up on the court and ObaNancycare lawsuits end up in front of the Supreme Court, will she recuse herself from the case?

Brat on May 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

***

Just sayin’…but you have a strong argument, soo…

cartooner on May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

I don’t disagree with you, but I think that the GOP needs to be loud in its no votes. Socialism sucks, and the GOP can point to Greece and warn that appointing Kagan will help to institutionalizing what’s crumbling in Greece and other European countries. I’d run ads with naturalized citizens warning Americans that they don’t want socialism institutionalized through the Supreme Court. This could be a big issue in Senate elections. But you have to make the point loudly.

Here, in Ohio, I’d love to see Rob Portman be able to hang Kagan and the prospect of other liberal judicial nominees around the neck of his Democratic challenger, Lee Fisher. Ohio may be a swing state, but a majority of us are NOT down for socialism.

BuckeyeSam on May 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

“…. . Having someone who understands the frustration of running something would be helpful to the court.”

Wouldn’t someone who understands running a court be more helpful than someone who has never run a court?

This woman has very little experience in the practice of law and absolutely no experience on the bench at either the trial or appellate level. (Her amicus brief effort was rejected by the court 9-0.) She has virtually no experience in the private sector. She has spent her career in government service or the ivory towers of academe. She has largely managed to avoid revealing her views on virtually every significant issue of legal importance, with the exception of her stance on military recruiters on campus.

We do know Obama wants her on the bench. By now only fools and ignoramuses aren’t aware of his political agenda. What little she has said publicly suggests she, like Obama, is from the “empathy” school of judicial thought (using the term “thought” loosely). We can assume safely that she is sympathetic to his politics and his agenda, else why nominate her?

Inexperienced, unproven, in some respects a blank slate, and aligned with the most radically leftist occupant of the White House in American history. What could go wrong?

novaculus on May 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM

search4truth on May 14, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Funny how that works.

Threadwinner.

hillbillyjim on May 14, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Quite simply, Barry has picked a socialist an elitist.

GarandFan on May 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

FIFY

Shy Guy on May 14, 2010 at 10:41 AM

“Kagan’s “unique experience” for the Court”

What, was she a community organizer also?

GFW on May 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Lawgiver?
Akzed on May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Lawgiver

agmartin on May 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

It’s a call to have Kagan become a high priest

priest? not priestess? Was that a crack at “Pat” Kagan the softball player?

tommylotto on May 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

if Obama wants a judicial activist

Bingo. That’s exactly what he wants. He’ll use his community organizing/con artist tactics to promote her and get the nomination. I’m too cynical to think the GOP will challenge her with tough questions about her ideology revealed in her “paper trail.” We’ll see.

conservative pilgrim on May 14, 2010 at 11:11 AM

if Obama wants a judicial activist

Bingo. That’s exactly what he wants.

conservative pilgrim on May 14, 2010 at 11:11 AM

conservative pilgrim:)
=======================================

Dean Kagan accepts award from Equal Justice Works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJsh7O8z3s
===========
===========

http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Dean Kagan accepts award from Equal Justice Works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJsh7O8z3s
===========
===========

http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Whoa. That was my first video experience of Elena Kagan. Interesting. EJW appears to be right up the socialist, community organizer’s alley, huh? Thanks for the info.

conservative pilgrim on May 14, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Whoa. That was my first video experience of Elena Kagan. Interesting. EJW appears to be right up the socialist, community organizer’s alley, huh? Thanks for the info.

conservative pilgrim on May 14, 2010 at 11:37 AM

conservative pilgrim:Thats why Hopey wants her there!!:)

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM

“Having a basic understanding of the messiness of government is useful,” he said.

And I’m sure she has a few ideas on how to ‘fix’ it, too. Activist judge? You betcha!

ss396 on May 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

canopfor on May 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Dean Kagan accepts award from Equal Justice Works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJsh7O8z3s

Just my first impressions, she doesn’t seem like a thoughtful person to me.

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Kagan would be unconstrained by the politics of political life in the WH or Congress, were this travesty of a nominee confirmed. She is completely unqualified for this unique position and any repub who votes for her would be unqualified to hold his/her Senate seat.

eaglewingz08 on May 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Paul Light, an expert on the federal government…

What does that even mean? Apparently, with this descriptor we are just supposed to accept everything he says as irrefutable.

DrMagnolias on May 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM

It’s insidious, no?

holygoat on May 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

She has wonderful ‘unique experience’ with Goldman-Sachs, as Judicial Watch points out:

Kagan worked as an “advisor” for Goldman Sachs for about four years and received a $10,000 annual “stipend” from the embattled investment banking and securities firm. The information only came to light because Kagan was forced to include it on financial disclosure forms when Obama appointed her Solicitor General last year.

Goldman Sachs has been charged with defrauding investors in the sale of securities with subprime mortgage ties when the housing market was collapsing. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) claims the firm misstated and omitted key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages, leaving investors to lose $1 billion.

Yes, very, very, very ‘special’ experience.

Wonder if we will see a member of the SCOTUS implicated in securities problems in the near future? Wouldn’t that be fun’n’games?

ajacksonian on May 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Be warned – scroll down just a tad.

Schadenfreude on May 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM

The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies.

In other totally, completely unrelated news, Venezuela’s economic misery has inflamed anti-Chávez sentiment and fueled large-scale protests. Ordinary Venezuelans are mad about food and water shortages, power outages, and surging crime rates. There are national legislative elections scheduled for September; unfortunately, many Venezuelans fear those elections will never take place. It’s possible that Chávez will manufacture a phony “security crisis” and suspend the voting indefinitely.

But she played softball.

Noel on May 14, 2010 at 12:48 PM

I want to know if she thinks “the right to privacy” covers my medical records, whether or not I have health insurance, and my choice in the food I eat, or is it just limited to abortion and sex.

ladyingray on May 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Schadenfreude on May 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM

At first glance, I thought “Why is Bill Richardson wearing pearls?”

LegendHasIt on May 14, 2010 at 1:15 PM

“unique experience”? How does rug munching count as “unique experience”?

geo on May 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Hillary is probably thinking “At last! Someone who makes my cankles look smaller!”

The Evil Doctor K on May 15, 2010 at 12:48 AM

She is Obama. They are manufactured, brainwashed and sent out by their creators to destroy in order to change. Kill in order to save. Call Truth hate speech and lie. Then repeat the lie and have your various outlets of the Ministry of Propaganda disseminate those lies from the mouths of trusted talking heads who read what’s on the ‘prompter.
Journalism has surrendered and for the most part, died long ago. Now it’s in league with the most destructive and anti-American administration ever.
Of course they approve of her. How could they do otherwise without condemning the messiah?
She is him in a bizzaro funhouse mirror that changes everything except political ideology. Socialists. They see Sweden and are envious of their 70% tax rate. The land where all things flow from the government. Where self reliance and the spirit of entrepreneurship has ceased to exist. Why Bother? Success is met with severe punishment.
This is what Obama and crew see for us.
Look at the damage done in such a short period of time. Relations with most of our allies are shot to hell while he extends a slapped hand over and over to those that cry death to America.
He openly supports the return of the would be President for life in the Honduras. He supports the puppet that Chavez chose for the position. Good is bad. Truth is hate speech…
Medals for being shot at and not shooting back. Cowardice is valor. Information is a distraction. Ignorance is power.
Obama loves America.
One Truth I still know for sure.

Obama is a liar and Truth is
killing his Marxist Agenda.

Army Brat on May 15, 2010 at 6:28 AM