Kagan Is A Socialist And Hostile To The Constitution

From Floyd Reports (Impeach Obama Campaign):


Kagan: A Socialist Who Is Hostile Toward The First Amendment... A Dangerous Combination.



Rush Limbaugh said: "That's what Kagan is... a socialist. Her senior thesis is all you need to see. I mean, it's passionate about socialism. Passionate. I mean, this woman is on fire for socialism.... This, I think, is her one true love... socialism, her life partner, her soul mate. Socialism. ... She's all about social justice. Her passion isn't for the law. It's to equality of outcome as defined and determined by central government planners, and when I say 'passion,' I mean heavy breathing passion. I mean hot and bothered passion. Cold, cold sweat kind of passion."



In her 129-page Princeton Thesis, Kagan practically weeps over the demise of Socialism in the United States. The following passage from her conclusion sums it all up: "In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future... of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. ... Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?"



A "golden past"? ... "Socialism's greatness"? ... This unbridled passion for Socialism is arguably enough to disqualify her from sitting on our nation's High Court, but we're just scratching the surface when it comes to Barack Obama's mystery nominee.



As a matter of fact, it is coming to light that, like many socialists, Kagan may actually believe that our First Amendment rights come from the federal government... that they are not innate... that they are not God-given... that the government does us a "favor" when it allows us to speak out... and that the government has the right to censor speech.



According to the aforementioned Washington Times editorial, "Kagan argued before the Supreme Court that the law should be read to allow the government to prohibit the publication of political pamphlets."



But that's not all... The Times goes on to state that "Kagan also has written of the benefits of 'redistribution of expression,' and has written that speech rights are to be 'dol[ed] out' as a 'favor' from government rather than being pre-existing rights that government cannot take away. She has argued that government would be justified in 'disfavoring [an] idea [to] 'unskew,' rather than skew, public discourse.'"



Do those statements disturb you? They disturb us. But moreover, those statements make it crystal-clear to us that when it comes to stopping the confirmation of this dangerous woman to the Supreme Court, there can be no half-measures. Kagan's confirmation must be stopped... by any means necessary. We must demand a filibuster.