From American Thinker:

The commission appointed by President Obama to investigate the Gulf oil spill (the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling) does not include a single member with specialized knowledge of petroleum engineering. This is akin to performing a heart transplant with a surgical team that has never set foot in an operating room.

Of the seven members appointed to the commission, not one is a petroleum engineer, and all have long-standing ties to the environmental movement. This is certainly the case with Frances Beinecke, Donald Boesch, Terry Garcia, and Frances Ulmer, all of whom have close ties to environmentalist research and policy groups. Beinecke, in fact, is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, while Ulmer is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. How’s that for an unbiased commission on drilling?

If the president’s intention was to prevent future leaks, why would he appoint a commission with no knowledge of drilling? The answer, it would seem, is that this commission was never meant to perform the task it was officially charged with. It was never really intended to be a commission on drilling safety, but rather a group of environmental activists intent on regulating and taxing the oil and gas companies out of business. Its report is unlikely to focus on improved safely measures with the intent of increasing oil and gas exploration and production. It will more likely issue a blueprint on how to restrict drilling while extorting profits from oil companies by way of new fees and regulation.

Even as the commission hears impassioned testimony from Gulf Coast residents about the economic devastation of Obama’s ban on deep-water drilling (his second ban, the first having been ruled illegal by a federal court), its members continue to register their opposition to drilling of any sort. Following recent testimony in New Orleans, during which prominent Gulf leaders pleaded for a resumption of offshore drilling, the commission’s directors, William Reilly and Bob Graham, offered lip service to the resumption of drilling. But where were Ms. Beinecke and the commission’s other environmental activists during these hearings? From all accounts, they have been silent about the economic damage caused by Obama’s drilling ban.

There are two crucial lessons to be learned from the Deepwater Horizon accident, but it is doubtful whether the commission will comprehend either of them. The first is that “best practices” exist which, had they been strictly adhered to, may have prevented the Deepwater Horizon accident. It is for the commission to determine whether they were followed in that case, but it is incontrovertible that best practices have prevented significant accidents on all of the other 40,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. These practices, with continual improvement, should prevent spills in the future as well.

The second lesson, and one that no one in government or the mainstream media seems to have considered, is that the Deepwater Horizon, however flawed its management might have been, had the capacity to produce a great deal of oil and gas. Based on the enormous flow of oil from the Deepwater Horizon and others among the 33 deep-water rigs operating in the Gulf, it is clear that vast reserves of oil and gas exist off America’s shores. These reserves are enough to make the United States energy-independent. They are enough to revive our flagging economy, enough to produce jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers and to create secondary and tertiary jobs for millions of others.

Estimates of oil flow from the Deepwater Horizon have come in at between 40,000 and 100,000 barrels. Taking a mean estimate of 70,000 barrels, the annual production from the well, not counting natural gas and condensates, would have amounted to 25,555,000 barrels per year. One hundred such deep-water wells in the Gulf, producing equal quantities of oil, would produce over 2.5 billion barrels per year, enough to supply one-third of the petroleum needs of the United States. This new production alone would add over $175 billion to annual GDP, and it would cut America’s annual trade deficit by the same amount. Combined with increased onshore drilling, conservation measures, and increased production of natural gas made possible by advances in drilling technology, offshore drilling would render the United States energy-independent for the first time in a half-century.

Moreover, deep-water drilling has the potential to transform America from the slow-growth, high-unemployment welfare state that President Obama envisages into a prosperous, full-employment economy. This new economy would not only be energy independent, but it might well become an exporter of oil and gas — as it is now an exporter of coal.

Expansion from the current 33 wells to 100 is a realistic goal, since it would not be necessary to drill 100 deep-water wells annually. Oil flow from wells such as the Deepwater Horizon continues for ten to thirty years, or even more (as it has in the North Sea). Ten additional deepwater wells per year, combined with fracking for natural gas on shore, would soon move the country toward energy independence.

For most Americans, new drilling and the energy independence that comes with it seem like a good thing, but that is the very reason why the president has appointed a commission hostile to increased drilling. The success of the free market in the United States depends to a great extent on the availability of cheap energy. By cutting off the supply of oil, natural gas, and coal, Obama ensures a continuation of high unemployment and an extended period of slow growth, and with these, the expansion of the socialist welfare state.

Nothing could be further from the interests of the modern-day Democratic Party than the transformation of the American economy into a flourishing free-market economy powered by cheap and reliable fossil fuels. The fight over drilling, in this sense, is nothing less than a struggle for the future of capitalism in America.

President Barack Obama, the honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, will not speak in-person before the group on Wednesday at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, as part of the organization’s 100th anniversary celebration. However, the president is sending a videotaped message to the scouts for Wednesday, the same day he will be in Manhattan to tape an appearance for ABC TV’s talk show “The View.”

Bob Dries, chairman of national news and media at the Boy Scouts of America Jamboree – a gathering that happens every four years and attracts thousands of scouts from around the world – told CNSNews.com that the organization was told on Monday that the president had scheduling conflicts and would not be speaking in-person at the week-long event.

The BSA had scheduled its Wednesday arena program to include remarks by the president at 11 a.m. in front of the more than 45,000 scouts who will be in attendance.

The White House did not confirm to CNSNews.com that the president would not speak live at the Jamboree on Wednesday, but reporters were sent an e-mail at 1:45 p.m. on Monday announcing that the president will be in New Jersey on Wednesday afternoon to talk about the economy before he travels on to New York City to film his appearance for “The View’s” Thursday edition.

Also, shortly after the White House e-mail was distributed, Bob Dries confirmed that Jamboree officials had been informed the president would not be speaking in-person but would address the scouts via pre-taped remarks.

Since the Jamboree was launched in 1937, sitting presidents have been invited to speak at the event in their role as the honorary chairman of the BSA. That year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke at the inaugural Jamboree, held on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

Obama’s three predecessors spoke at the event – George H. W. Bush in 1989 and Bill Clinton in 1998 in-person, and George W. Bush who spoke via video in 2001 when bad weather prevented him from traveling. George W. Bush did speak in-person at the 2005 Jamboree.

First Lady Nancy Reagan addressed the Jamboree in 1985, the first year someone from the White House had spoken there since President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Prior to Johnson, President Harry Truman was joined by then-General and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, both of whom spoke at the 1950 Jamboree in Valley Forge.

Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Carter and Ford did not speak at a Jamboree and President John F. Kennedy was assassinated before the Jamboree in 1964 when Johnson spoke.

The BSA issued a statement late on Monday about President Obama not being able to speak at the event.

“Due to his schedule, President Obama will not be able to attend the 2010 National Scout Jamboree,” the statement reads. “In February, the President sent a letter honoring the BSA’s 100th Anniversary and his signature appears on Eagle Scout cards.”

“Also, he has welcomed Boy Scouts contingents in the Oval Office twice since taking office,” the statement reads. “President Obama serves as the Honorary President of the BSA, as has every President since Howard Taft. While each President is traditionally invited to attend the Jamboree, not every President has been able to attend the event.”

“We thank the President for his effort to recognize Scouting and look forward to working with his administration as we work toward accomplishing our mission of preparing young people to become exceptional adults,” the statement concludes.

The two occasions referred to in the statement were when scouting representatives visited the Oval Office in 2009 and earlier this month for the BSA to present the president with the organization’s annual Report to the Nation, which outlines accomplishments for the year and the BSA’s vision for the future.

In a statement about his appearance on the “The View,” ABC said it would be “the first time in history a sitting United States president has visited a daytime talk show.”

In an e-mail, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told The New York Times that Obama’s appearance on “The View” had been “contemplated for several weeks because the president was scheduled to be in New York City for a fund-raiser,” and that the appearance “was nailed down early last week.”

“If it works schedule-wise, we try to have the president appear on some non-traditional news shows shen we go to New York City, since that’s where most of the shows tape,” Pfeiffer said in his e-mail.

President Obama has his priorities straight, indeed.  Within hours of Shirley Sherrod asking to speak to Obama, he spoke to her to express his regret:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president expressed his regret, and told Sherrod he hoped she would accept the Agriculture Department’s offer of a new position, saying she could parlay “this misfortune” into an opportunity to use her life experiences to help people. Gibbs said the president thought Sherrod was “very gracious.”

[snip]

“The president expressed to Ms. Sherrod his regret about events of the last several days,” the White House said. “He emphasized that Secretary Vilsack was sincere in his apology yesterday, and in his work to rid USDA of discrimination.”

[snip]

White House staff were trying to reach Sherrod this morning, and when she called back to the White House, the president spoke with her from his private office.

Wow.  That was fast–the White House staff even trying to call her this morning.  So efficient.  Sadly, this concern and efficiency was severely lacking with the Gulf oil spill and Obama’s timeline, in which Obama finally met with BP’s (former) CEO Tony Hayward on day 58 of the oil spill.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6urJsX3KX4

A Internet report that President Obama has not been signing Eagle Scout certificates for high achievers who belong to the organization that espouses traditional and largely conservative values is grounded in fact, according to commenters who were responding to an opinion article from WND columnist Chuck Norris on the issue.

But even more people were suggesting they wouldn’t want Obama’s signature on a document of such importance in the lives of their children.

Norris recently quoted a report from Human Events in which the assistant Scoutmaster of Boy Scout Troop 162 in Virginia’s Arlington County confirmed, “No Eagle recognition letters have been received this year from the president.”

“The BSA says the primary reason was due to an administrative delay authorizing the president’s signature – something they say occurs every time there’s a change in the presidency,” Norris wrote. “Fascinating how I don’t recall any ‘administrative delay’ with the host of presidential signatures on a wide variety of issues and legislation from Obamacare, further stem-cell research, additional federal liberties for abortions or increasing the U.S. debt to bailout banks, the car industry, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, etc.”

On a comment page at Human Events after the Norris column appeared, William Blackford, a district commissioner for scouting in the Lodi, Calif., region, confirmed the situation.

“My son made Eagle in Aug 099 and there was no presidential signature on his certificate,” he wrote. “I have copies of Eagle certs as late as June 90 signed by George Bush.”

He said that was preferable anyway, and many others agreed.

There is good news here, wrote “Jim,” from Wichita. “The Eagle Scouts are deserving of a certificate signed by a real patriot and not the signature of a poser, liar, and heretic.”

“Actually he is doing all a favor, seems to me someone of the deficient moral character of Obama would defile any certificate by attaching his signature to it,” added “Mark.”

“If I were an (sic) boy scout today, I don’t think I’d want Obama’s name on my certificate,” added “Old Geezer.”

“I think he is doing the right thing by not signing them,” said “Bill,” of Utah. “I would not want his signature cheapening my grandsons achievements. ”

“Time constraints aren’t a factor here,” said “American.” “He’s so concerned about catering to the far-left, ‘I hate anything good and decent’ liberals he’s forgetting that there are plenty of us out here who don’t share their opinions and we’re voters too.”

“My Scouts don’t deserve to have their Eagle certificates devalued by casting a worthless signature on them from our illegitimate, translucent, socialist president,” said “Jeff.”

The comments continue for pages.

The official explanation from the Boy Scouts said “with any change in the administration at the White House, there is lag time between when the new president takes office and the processing and licensing of his electronic signature for our documents.”

Officials at Boy Scouts national headquarters told WND in an e-mail that Obama did not attend the organization’s 100th anniversary events in February but sent a “very nice letter.”

In it, Obama said, ” I wish you all the best.”

But Norris explained that while Obama accepted the position as honorary president of the Scouts, he did so behind closed doors without making any announcement, even though he issued statements on “export certification,” “transportation infrastructure” and “first lady speaks” on the same day.

“To be frank, I think Obama’s delay in signing Eagle Scout certificates has more to do with White House political correctness and establishing an arm’s-length relationship with the BSA than it has to do with any simple ‘administrative delay,’ especially when a series of lawsuits have been levied against the BSA bcause of its stand against atheists, agnostics and homosexuals,” Norris wrote.

The White House declined to respond to WND’s request for comment.

But J. Smith, from Virginia, also confirmed the signature issue.

“My son is one of those Eagle Scouts, and he did not get a signed letter. I am also a Scoutmaster and can assure you that NONE of my Eagle Scouts has received one since BHO became president. I lay the blame entirely on political correctness at the White House. The president has had time to revamp health care (including reforming the entire college loan process as a side-line to that) and ‘bail out’ (i.e., seize) dozens of industries and play golf all the darned time, but hasn’t had time to authorize his signature? What does that take, an hour’s time?”

Norris’ column noted his report was the first of a three-part series.

“Norris will not only give further proof concerning how the Obama administration is creating an arm’s-length relationship with the BSA, but show how President Obama’s advocacy of the BSA compares to the past 100 years of U.S. presidents,” he advised.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zGMuN_Ep38

This weekend, President Obama will skip Memorial Day services at Arlington National Cemetery, and instead he will take his family to Chicago for rest and relaxation. The gesture has rankled many on the right and caused the left to swing into full ‘defend Obama’ mode. However, the fact remains that during a time of war, it is extraordinary that the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces would choose not to be at Arlington on this solemn occasion.

First, it must be said that the president is not skipping out on his official duties entirely. At the start of the weekend, the president will travel to Louisiana to survey the response to oil spill; only his second trip to the region since the disaster over a month ago. And on Monday, the president will deliver remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, IL. In between these duties he will spend a “casual weekend with friends” and then fly home in time to make a White House tribute to Paul McCartney on Wednesday evening.

So what’s the big deal? As leftist columnist David Corn writes: “[D]oes it matter if Obama throws some leaves on a tomb?” Well, apparently to liberals, it does not matter and to Corn, even wondering why the president would miss the occasion in itself dishonors lost soldiers. Seriously. Somehow, wanting the president to appropriately honor the troops who paid the ultimate price is chalked up as “political ammo.”

The truth is that no president has missed the Arlington ceremony on Memorial Day since 1992. That year, former President Bush attended a ceremony in Maine while campaigning for re-election. In 1992 our nation was not at war. President Bush was himself a decorated war hero in World War II, risking life and limb to complete bombing missions in the Pacific and losing crewmates in the battles. His commitment to honoring his brothers-in-arms was never in doubt. So comparing 1992 to 2010 is not exactly an apples to apples debate.

On the other hand, President Obama has demonstrated time and time again an unwillingness to fully support our troops whether through resources or through rhetoric. He gave a commencement address in 2008 with the theme of ’serving your country’ on that Memorial Day weekend, and did not mention serving in the military once. His proposed budgets reduce defense spending as a percentage of GDP to pre-9/11 levels. And this White House is uncomfortable even using the term ‘war on terror’ which is the cause that many of those who sacrificed their lives committed themselves to in the first place.

This is not a president who is automatically viewed as a friend of the military, and he has reinforced this view himself, time and time again. In December 2009, the president traveled to West Point (what MSNBC’s Chris Matthew’s called the “enemy camp” that night) to address the ongoing wars and his strategic plans. He used the speech, which was broadcast to all bases overseas, to attack the premise of the Iraq War and his predecessor. He never used the words “win” or “victory” but talked of “conclusions.” And he highlighted his own sacrifice of reading and writing letters and reasserted the ridiculous notion that he was “repairing” relations with the Muslim world.

This was not a morale boost for cadets that evening, or for the country. It did reinforce the idea that President Obama is a reluctant Commander in Chief, who would prefer focus on domestic government growth. It is speeches like these that make conservatives take pause when the president chooses golfing with friends over attending Arlington in a time of war to honor our fallen troops.

To indifferent liberals, this solemn remembrance is merely throwing “leaves on a tomb” and this controversy is the manufactured delusions of “conservative wingnuts.” The Democratic Party’s sister organization ’Media Matters’ has been full throated in trying to turn this controversy around on the president’s detractors. But to veterans, and their families, regardless of political beliefs, this is a symbolic break in tradition that can only be viewed as casual indifference.

Sending Vice President Biden, the man who told Brussels two weeks ago that it, not Washington, should hold the title of ‘capital of the free world’, in his place does not excuse his absence, and will likely give little comfort to those stricken families who expected to hear from their Commander in Chief. President Obama shouldn’t just be at Arlington on Memorial Day, he should want to be there.

UPDATE: As Robert points out in the comments, we failed to point out that President George W. Bush also missed Arlington’s Memorial Day ceremonies in 2002, when he joined Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi, Secretary of State Colin Powell and a bipartisan congressional delegation for services at the American cemetery in Normandy, France, honoring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice on D-Day. Certainly an occasion that was warranted. You can read his remarks here.

UPDATE 2: Many commenters have rightly pointed out that the president will attend services at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, as also mentioned above. It is true that the heroes laid to rest in this cemetery are equally deserving of presidential attention. However, is President Obama attending services here because of the honor of this particular location, or the geographical proximity to his other plans? The memorial at Arlington serves as a national celebration, which is why past presidents have made special efforts to attend, when possible. We appreciate your comments and debate. Thanks for reading.

President Obama went to Arlington Cemetery to lay the wreath last year, but this year Obama’s handing the wreath to Plugs and heading off to the more welcoming political climes of Chicago:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to spend a long holiday weekend in Chicago.

The White House says Obama and his family will travel to their hometown on Thursday and stay through the weekend. It will be their first trip back home since a visit for Valentine’s Day weekend in February 2009.

On Monday, Obama is scheduled to participate in a Memorial Day ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill.

In Obama’s absence, Vice President Joe Biden will participate in the customary wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington.

Obama will however make it back to Washington in time next week tohonor Paul McCartney, who has sacrificed so much for the freedoms we enjoy.

Boy, I’m starting to think that West Point speech wasn’t from the heart.

Update: Obama will alter vacation plans slightly and travel to the Gulf on Friday in a desperate attempt to “plug the damn hole” in his approval ratings.

Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Elana Kagan, is like Harriet Miers in some respects. She’s a very accomplished woman, but she’s under-accomplished for a Supreme Court Justice. Kagan has never sat on the bench and she’d never even argued a case before the Supreme Court before she became Obama’s Solicitor General.

Worse yet, she has some ugly baggage. Hilariously, given the events of recent months, Kagan spent 3 years on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs. However, much more significantly, Kagan banned military recruiters from Harvard over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We’re at war and Obama’s picking a judge who’s hostile to the troops? For someone who supported and respected the troops, a nominee like Kagan would be a non-starter. The GOP should come back to that issue again and again during the confirmation hearings.

So, why did Obama take Kagan? He could have easily taken a less controversial nominee than a woman who received 31 Republican “no votes” for the Solicitor General position. Moreover, let’s be honest: Every liberal justice votes the same way Michael Moore would on any case that matters. Liberal political goals mean everything and the Constitution means nothing. So, they can talk about how wonderfully centrist she is (They say that about every liberal justice), but in the end, she’ll vote for anything near and dear to the heart of the Left. So, why Kagan? My best guess is that Obama figures Kagan is a two-fer: She’ll be another woman on the Supreme Court and the first lesbian as well. Yes, Kagan’s not technically out of the closet yet, but give it time.

Now, let’s get down to it: Should the GOP filibuster? Kagan doesn’t deserve to be on the Supreme Court, but strategically, it would be futile to filibuster an Obama Supreme Court pick unless the GOP intends to keep the logjam going through 2-3 nominees to force a moderate selection. The Democrats have shown that kind of discipline before. The GOP never has and after railing against the filibuster as unconstitutional, they’re unlikely to do so with Kagan. There are at least a half-dozen Republicans who will vote for pretty much any Democrat with a heartbeat and a law degree, despite the fact that the Dems won’t return the favor. Ultimately, that means any sort of political strategy is doomed and even if Kagan somehow goes down in flames, she’d be replaced with a liberal who’s just as bad next time around. That means there is no real point to filibustering her other than to deflect criticism. If the GOP had even 48 or 49 senators, I’d be calling for them to be just as ruthless as the Democrats. However, with 41 votes, it’s a no-win situation.

More, She’s Just Like Obama!

Like most politically interested Americans, I’m gobbling up all I can find about Elena Kagan. And the portrait that’s emerging looks very familiar. In fact, Elena Kagan looks a lot like the man nominating her for the Supreme Court: She is young, smart, brash, inexperienced, possibly socialist, calculating, and affable.

The choice says more about President Obama than it does Elena Kagan. He likes himself and wants the qualities he possesses on the Supreme Court.

Here are some good pieces on the pick:

Ilya Somin says:

Even if they choose not to oppose Kagan, conservatives and libertarians can still use the nomination and resulting hearings as an opportunity to raise important issues and point out weaknesses in the administration’s judicial philosophy. Kagan herself defended the legitimacy of inquiries into a nominee’s judicial philosophy in a in a 1995 article. Despite some excesses, I think we were fairly successful at doing that during the debate over Sotomayor, which gave new prominence to property rights issues, and forced Sotomayor to publicly repudiate liberal views on the importance of “empathy” and international law. Hopefully, the Kagan hearings will be another opportunity to advance public debate over important legal questions.

William Jacobson says that this nomination ends Gay Marriage hopes:

The meme has taken hold that Kagan is a stealth candidate who has avoided taking positions on important constitutional or other issues throughout her career.

But on one issue of critical importance to the left — the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Kagan has staked out a very clear and unequivocal position: There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The New York Times has a nice profile of Kagan.

Another good history of Kagan at the Washington Post.

Josh Gerstein of the Politico believes that President Obama doesn’t want a big fight from the Right. He may have one though, from the left, if Twitter is any indication. There’s a bit of angst about this decision.

Ed Morrissey brings up Kagan’s Goldman Sach’s ties and “thin resume”. Like I said, just like Obama.

James Joyner notes:

The biggest void on her resume is that she’s never been a judge. She was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia toward the end of Clinton’s presidency but the Senate let the clock run out. No currently sitting justice was without judicial experience when nominated. From an experiential standpoint, that’s not a big deal, at least to me. Until recently, it was quite normal for bright legal minds outside the “judicial monastery” to serve on the High Court. Most recently, William Rehnquist had no prior experience and had a distinguished career.

It does mean, however, that Kagan has even less of a paper trail than has been the norm of late. Which means Senators are going to have to guess as to her legal philosophy based on her scant record of academic scholarship (not a dig — she’s by all accounts brilliant and accomplished but she wasn’t a prolific writer) and her actions in government.

Doug Mataconis (same link, above) says:

As James, notes William Rehnquist didn’t have prior judicial experience when Nixon nominated him in 1971, and he’s not alone. Earl Warren didn’t, Byron White didn’t, and while Sandra Day O’Connor did serve as a trial court and appellate court judge in Arizona, her primary experience prior to her nomination was in the Arizona Legislature.

At the moment, every single member of the Supreme Court served as a member of one of the United States Courts of Appeal prior to being nominated to the High Court. In fact, four of the current Justices — Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Roberts, all came to the Supreme Court from the same Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Picking someone outside of the high priesthood of the Circuit Court Of Appeals strikes me as a good idea.

So, we’ll see.

Both Bill Dupray and Clyde Middleton here at Liberty Pundits are lawyers. No doubt, they’ll have more perspectives.

More at Memeorandum.

UPDATED:

Gallup has polling on the fact that no Protestants would be on the Supreme Court.

Jim Hoft calls her a loon.

Move America Forward says:

“The nation’s leading grassroots military-support organization, Move America Forward, says military families and their supporters are extremely displeased to learn that President Barack Obama has chosen Solicitor General Elena Kagan to join the U.S. Supreme Court.

During a time of war, when America faces threats from Islamic terrorists, and when we have troops fighting on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need a judge who understands and supports our military. Elana Kagan is not that person!” said Danny Gonzalez, Director of Communications.

“Kagan was the last person from Obama’s short list that military personnel and their families want to see appointed to the Supreme Court. Not only has Kagan never even been a judge, she has a record of being radically anti-military, most notably in her opposition to the Soloman Act.”

When Kagan was Dean of Law at Harvard University, she expelled military recruiters from campus in defiance of The Solomon Act, which she has argued against in writing and speeches. She, along with 40 other law professors, argued to the Supreme Court against the Soloman Act, but her arguments were rejected by even the most liberal justices.

“President Obama should be appointing to the Supreme Court only those who truly appreciate the heroism and contribution to our freedom we get from the United States military. Kagan fails that test, and we hope she will be summarily rejected in confirmation by the United States Senate.” concluded Gonzalez

The 10 Issues Elena Kagan will face.

Elena Kagan can’t drive?

UPDATED AGAIN:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Monday regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court:

“I congratulate Elena Kagan on her nomination. As we did with Justice Sotomayor last year, Senate Republicans will treat Ms. Kagan fairly. She has been nominated for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court, and we will carefully review her brief litigation experience, as well as her judgment and her career in academia, both as a professor and as an administrator. Fulfilling our duty to advise and consent on a nomination to this office requires a thorough process, not a rush to judgment.

“The American people expect judges to apply the Constitution and laws of the United States fairly and impartially—as they are written, not how they could have been written but were not. Even though the President who nominates them has personal policy preferences, judges must not be a rubberstamp for any administration. Judges must not walk into court with a preconceived idea of who should win. Their job is to apply the law ‘without respect to persons,’ as the judicial oath states; it is not to pick winners or losers.

“Senate Republicans will have a vigorous debate on the importance of this principle. And we will diligently review the record of Ms. Kagan to ensure that she shares this principle and that she possesses the requisite experience to serve on the Supreme Court.”

RNC’s Chairman Steele says:

Over the past year, the American people have been witness to President Obama’s massive expansion of the federal government into our daily lives. To assure the American people, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, will need to demonstrate that she is committed to upholding the vision of our Founding Fathers, who wrote a Constitution meant to limit the power of government, not expand it.

The President has stated repeatedly that he wants a justice who will understand the effects of decisions on the lives of everyday Americans. But what Americans want is a justice who will stay true to the Constitution and defend the rights of all Americans, adhering to the rule of law instead of legislating from the bench.

Given Kagan’s opposition to allowing military recruiters access to her law school’s campus, her endorsement of the liberal agenda and her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution “as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective,’” you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan’s qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.

The Pentagon on Monday will release long-classified statistics about the total size of America’s nuclear arsenal, part of an effort to make the case that the country is honoring its treaty commitments to shrink its inventory of weapons significantly, senior administration officials said Sunday.

The American initiative will be cast by the White House as a small but significant step toward allowing the world to measure whether President Obama makes good on his promise of reducing American reliance on nuclear defenses. The commitment to make the figures public will be included in a speech that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver at the opening of aUnited Nations conference reviewing progress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Mrs. Clinton will also announce new funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

For years, American intelligence officials have objected to publishing quantitative descriptions of the American nuclear arsenal, concerned that the figures might help terrorist groups calculate the minimum nuclear fuel needed for a weapon. But administration officials said reputable Web sites that track such issues have long noted that American weapons designers need an average of around 4 kilograms of plutonium, or 8.8 pounds.

“It became clear there was a way to get the transparency without revealing any state secrets,” a senior administration official said, declining to speak on the record because the numbers had not yet been declassified.

The numbers will combine three categories of weapons: deployed, in “active reserve” and in inactive storage. They exclude weapons designated for decommissioning. The United States and Russia have already revealed the number of deployed strategic weapons they possess. Britain and France have recently revealed details of their stockpiles. China has said little. India, Pakistan and Israel — which have all refused to sign the treaty — have not revealed numbers.

President Barack Obama has played golf 32 times since he took office, eight more than his predecessor George W. Bush – who was mocked by the Left for his fondness for the game – did in his entire presidency.

Mr Obama’s latest outing on the links came on Sunday, when an opportunity opened up on his schedule after flying bans over most of northern and central Europe forced him to cancel his trip to Krakow to attend the funeral of Lech Kaczynski, the Polish president.

Mr Bush was shown in the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11 condemning “terrorist killers” in the Middle East when asked a question on the golf course in 2002. Barely pausing for breath, he added: “Thank you. Now watch this drive.”

Mr Bush later gave up golf, saying in a 2008 interview: “I don’t want to some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf… And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

The golfing figures were compiled by Mark Knoller of CBS Radio, the unofficial White House statistician.
Mr Obama’s Sunday golf game prompted anger in Poland, where the Warsaw Business Post carried a headline reading: “Obama goes golfing instead of attending Kaczynskis’ funeral”.