In the third and final presidential debate with Republican nominee John McCain on October 15, 2008, Obama implied that he would look for Supreme Court nominees with previous judicial experience:

“I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.”

If that’s the case, Barry, why did you nominate Elena Kagan, a woman with NO judicial record?? You are a hypocrite and a liar…once again!

It’s really tiring! And that is part of his strategy. Lie after lie, empty words, false promises and his blatant hypocrisy. We’re bombarded with so much of Barry’s BS that, after a while, we simply give up, tune out, we stop caring. Most of the public stick their heads in the sand and simply wait for the storm to pass.

No, we must MAKE IT pass! Hey, if we can stop the sun from making our planet hot by purchasing “carbon offsets” then we should be able to end the Obama lunacy from continuing to destroy our nation.

Back to my point. Is anyone surprised that the mainstream media is giving Elena Kagan a pass? Of course not, when you eat out of Obama’s hand like an undernourished sheep (yes, sheep!), why would you make an issue out of the fact that Kagan has NO judicial experience?!

On the other hand, perhaps they know something we don’t. Perhaps Kagan has had years of experience as a community organizer we didn’t know about, which would make her ideally suited as a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe as dean of Harvard Law School, sheltered from the “real world” as most Universities are, she has gained some indispensable insight which make her the top choice to become the next Supreme Court Justice.

Are you kidding me? Get real! No offense Ms. Kagan, but can she REALLY be the BEST CHOICE?!?!

The answer is a resounding YES! She is the best choice for the socialist agenda of the Obama regime. The will define the term “legislating from the bench”. She’s an activist, not a judge. Judges are supposed to be impartial, supposed to interpret the law NOT rewrite it! She will make a mockery and a joke of the Supreme Court if she is confirmed.

This woman is dangerous. For example, here’s a woman who wants to “redistribute speech”. In other words, as an advocate of the “fairness doctrine”, she essentially wants to silence conservative speech. Silence the opposition, criminalizing conservatism.

Her brilliant interpretation on the subject of the “overabundance” of conservative talk radio:

“If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action — which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate — then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse.”

In short, the “fairness doctrine”, as it is understood or at least intended today, is an attempt to limit conservative speech, primarily with regards to things like AM radio. The liberals are clearly threatened by the fact that conservatives essentially own the AM air waves. Yet they find it totally acceptable that liberals conversely own most of TV and print media. Of course they do, those are their propaganda tools.

Who cares if she has radical opinions? But she DOES NOT belong on the Supreme Court without judicial experience and her radical agenda! There must be thousands who are significantly more qualified.

If none of the foregoing convinced you, maybe this will. According to a report by WND, in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton University, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the country as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

A socialist on the US Supreme Court? God help us.