I want to be free

Our dog ran away on Sunday. Only for like 15 seconds, but boy was he off to the races in the great outdoors. My girlfriend loves Reggie. She rescued him. And she was in full blown panic mode. To be honest, so was I. He's a great dog. So I hauled major ass to go catch him because I didn't want him to run away, but even more so because I didn't want him to get hit by a car while consumed by his God-given desire to be free.

We all want to be free. At least, people who truly understand freedom desire to be truly free. I can imagine what it means to be truly free. I can imagine a country with clean elections and politicians and countrymen that don't actively suborn voter fraud. I can imagine money that has real value that cannot be manipulated by a few greedy, horrible human beings who steal from their fellow Americans. We call those guys the Federal Reserve. I can imagine being unafraid to speak my mind, but the truth is people with my views have been labeled a potential terrorist threat by "my" homeland security chief, Janet "Adolf" Napolitano. Funny, I don't recall electing her. And yet, somehow she has the power to label me an enemy of the state just because I happen to believe in the US Constitution. Doesn't she believe in the US Constitution?

I can imagine real economic liberty, where private property is respected and the rule of law prevails. Businesses are private property; government regulation of business is the coercive acquisition of ownership interest in a private organization. Government has very little authority on which to acquire private property, with the notable exception of eminent domain, public usage, and just compensation. Aren't those the constitutional principles the Supreme Court upheld in Kelo v New London? Do you know about Kelo v New London? If not, I highly recommend you look into it. Especially if you own a house.

I can imagine living in a nation where my wages are respected as private property too, just as the Founders intended. Wages are property, and income taxation creates the illusion that government has first right to what I have secured through the sweat of my brow. That's what I and many others believe. Are we not free to believe that, and to live under a system like that? I can imagine being allowed to choose freely to live under the rules established by the Founding Fathers, and not having that right forcibly taken from me without my consent.

I can imagine living in a country with a government that doesn't cover my hands in blood due to the taxpayer funded genocide of the unborn. I can imagine having a president that doesn't lie to my face about this parcel of his socialized medicine scheme that I did not consent to, and now will be forced to enter. Yes, forced.

I can imagine living in a country where big government, big banks and big business aren't colluding to screw over the American people while stealing our money. That's what the bailouts were: theft. From you and me. I can imagine living in a country where our politicians actually do what is best for the American people. "Free trade" agreements are not in the interests of the American people. Millions of jobs have been destroyed because of these insidious, destructive pieces of trash foisted upon us by our "elites". Our own people are losing their homes and worse because of "free trade" agreements, yet this is considered by our government to be in our best interests?

I can imagine living in a country that isn't making the world dangerous via reckless, illegal military interventionism, a grotesque practice decried by our nations founders. I can imagine living in a country that doesn't sell its young into bondage to make life a little more "secure" now through "entitlement" programs. I can imagine living side by side with virtuous people who don't feel "entitled" to anything, especially that which is mine.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the only legitimate role of government is to secure our natural rights. My conscience is under assault every moment of every day, coerced into submission by the US federal government, a government first instituted to secure my unalienable rights. In truth, I can only image what it is like to be truly free because I realize how free I am not. Just like Reggie when he took off down the road in a desire to be free, so too do I have a desire to be free. To live out my conscience free from coercion, and to be free to do and to live as I please so long as I do not violate the same rights of my fellow man.

I want to be free.

Irreconcilable: Conservatism and military interventionism

Conservatives hold themselves up as the defenders of the faith of our Fathers, and on most cases that is correct. Though there is an unfortunate amount of squish in Congress with respect to rolling back unconstitutional social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare and unauthorized federal departments like Education and Energy, if you ask any conservative whether or not those programs and departments are constitutional (as opposed to something we're just stuck with), they'd almost certainly answer correctly. Ask a conservative about the Commerce or General Welfare clauses and you're more likely to get an answer in line with the intent of the Founders than if you asked a leftist, who would be inclined to argue that there is essentially no limitation to congressional authority when invoking those two clauses. On the judiciary, the conservative position is aligned with the Founders, who viewed judicial authority as very limited (neither the power of the purse nor the sword). Leftists, on the other hand, use the judiciary to implement via fiat that which they cannot accomplish via legitimate legislative action. On economics and monetary policy, here again we find conservatives more aligned with the Founders (free markets and precious metal coinage) than the left, who believe in unqualified government intervention in the private economy (as well as wealth redistribution) and support for the Federal Reserve. On balance, conservatives are in fact aligned with the tradition of Founders and the US Constitution, whereas the left believes in the living constitution and that the Founders are irrelevant because they were all white (not true) and that they were all slave owners (also not true).

We find conservatism on the ascendancy due to the TEA Party movement, which is a blend of conservatism and libertarianism and seeks a long overdue return to constitutional moorings. The American people are rejecting authoritarian leftism and embracing conservatism and libertarianism in greater numbers every day as people awaken to the dangers posed by an aggressive general government with an insatiable lust for power. But there is one glaring issue where conservatives have found themselves so far beyond the vision of the Founders it threatens our liberty in ways even more profound than the social engineering of the authoritarian left. I have grave concerns about conservatism's unending embrace of aggressive military interventionism that flies in the face of the founding of the Republic and the profound advice of our greatest Founding Fathers. There is a cancer growing in the conservative movement, and we must cut it out before the movement dies, and with it the Republic itself.

One of the most glaring weaknesses of an ideologue is the unwillingness to challenge dearly held dogma despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is generally the domain of the authoritarian left, not of great thinkers confident in the ability to use the gift of reason to discern great fundamental truths. Conservatives generally reason to logical conclusions, while statists invoke emotional legerdemain in order to achieve their authoritarian goals. So why is it, then, that conservatives shriek in horror whenever someone challenges conventional wisdom, especially with respect to matters concerning the military, and our involvement in the "war on terror"? Take the general reaction to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's contention that America's aggressive actions abroad might precipitate grave consequences at home. He said that the United States was an accessory to 9/11, and the response from the Right was to act like the Left and shout Rauf down and label him a lunatic. That may very well be as Rauf seems like a two-faced scoundrel, but intellectual honesty demands we ask ourselves the following question: is he right about our complicity in 9/11? It's a question that will almost certainly invoke pain and anger in any patriotic American. How could it not? 9/11 was, to this point, the worst tragedy most of us have ever lived through. Nevertheless, it is one that requires urgent reflection by the cheerleaders of the American empire. I am a conservative libertarian (ask any of my friends) and it is my firm belief that Rauf the scoundrel is correct, and unless conservatives grapple with the gravity of Newton's Third Law with respect to our use of military (and paramilitary) force around the world, we will sink further and further into tyranny.

Nine years after 9/11/01 it is time to review some basic history and reassess our approach to foreign policy, especially as it relates to the problem of Islamist terrorism. Islam's war against the United States dates back to the Jefferson presidency and the Tripolitan Wars, so our nation is no stranger to the tyranny of radical Islam. Islam is always on the march and we were attacked on 9/11, so obviously some sort of response was required. But our response continued the abandonment of the American tradition begun in Korea and the rice paddies of Vietnam, and morphed from legitimate response (a massive strike against Afghanistan and the Taliban) to wars of aggression (Iraq; the surge in Afghanistan; and now news comes of a major strike inside the sovereign borders of Pakistan).
Further, we ignore at our own peril how our own actions in the Middle East influence the behavior of those who resent and hate the American people and, especially, our government. Here we return to Imam Rauf's suggestion that we were an accessory to an attack on our own people. Is he right? Have we forgotten our CIA-led overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953? Have we forgotten meddling in the Iran-Iraq War? Have we forgotten creating the mujahedeen in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in 1979? Should we not expect that interventionism will create resentment and hatred? What of our positioning of military bases on Muslim holy lands? Should we not expect this to incite anger and aggression? Would we take kindly to anyone putting a military base on American soil? President Kennedy risked global nuclear holocaust when the Soviet Union dared put nuclear weapons in Cuba, so I suspect I know the answer.

But to ask these questions of the conservative movement (and of the Republican establishment) is to invite not reflective consideration, but derision and ridicule. Ron Paul, a man of considerable intellectual heft, is an outcast in his own party for championing, amongst other things, the cause of a humble foreign policy. Humility in foreign policy is nothing to shun; it is the key to an effective foreign policy and global leadership. It is also something conservatives seem to have rejected out of hand in our anger and grief over the horrors of 9/11 and the complex struggle against radical Islam. Arrogance in foreign policy is not a sign of strength or one that exemplifies a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Quite the opposite, really. It shows an attitude of blatant disrespect for others, and suggests that our position, whatever it may be and whatever the cost in blood and treasure, is correct because it is the American position. Such arrogance and aggression position us for the kind of blowback we're experiencing all around the world. This blowback is the result of policy crafted without even a single moment of consideration as to why we were attacked in the first place and how that should influence our response. Instead of a limited but devastating counterattack designed to demonstrate American strength and resolve and mitigate the possibility of future terrorist attacks against the American people, our continuing war of aggression only begets more aggression against us and weakens us further every day.

The arrogance and interventionism that mark 21st century American foreign policy were decried by George Washington, who in his farewell address said, "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." Thomas Jefferson said, "[P]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." John Adams avoided the possibility of war with France in the tradition of non-interventionism. Though not a Founder, President Monroe said, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." This tradition of non-interventionism carried from Washington all the way up to perhaps Teddy Roosevelt (who meddled in Panama), and certainly was abandoned by Woodrow Wilson and his crusade to make the world safe for democracy. But that was never the purpose of America nor the intent of our Founders.

The endless "war on terror" continues this rejection of the non-interventionist first principle of American foreign policy, and in its wake we find the eradication of our civil liberties here at home. It shouldn't be a surprise. As the architect of the Constitution said, "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Madison said “no nation”, not “every nation but America.” So now due to the "war on terror" the American people have been subjected to the USA PATRIOT Act, a 180,000-person reckless and unaccountable global “national security” force, warrantless wiretapping at home, rendition and perhaps even torture abroad, virtual strip searches at airports, further abdication of the congressional responsibility to exercise its constitutional war-making powers and now, most unconscionable of all, the president of the United States claiming the authority to assassinate US citizens anywhere in the world without any congressional or judicial oversight. All of these policies are championed by conservatives as “necessities” in the “war on terror”, but none of these policies are conservative by any conceivable definition of the word. These authoritarian policies jettison anything left worth conserving of the Republic and place into the hands of the Bushian "unitary executive" all matters of life and death, of liberty and tyranny. It is, in short, a complete rejection of Americanism.

Madison continued,

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

These words ring ever true two centuries later, but where is the mainstream conservative movement when challenged on its support of the "war on terror" and its predictable erosion of civil liberties and unalienable rights? How can the conservative movement claim to be a champion of the Constitution and the rightful heirs of the Founding Fathers when it sits idly by while our rights are destroyed in the name of a little temporary safety? Correction. The conservative movement doesn't sit idly by. It demands yet more and more military action, which ultimately results in more death abroad and yet more destruction of our liberties here at home, never once stopping to ask if any of this has actually resulted in greater security for the American people. The chains that hang on us and our posterity as a result of endless war are as predictable as they were preventable. It's ironic at best that for all the lessons of the Founders absorbed by the conservative movement, our ability to coherently argue about commerce powers is rendered completely irrelevant in the face of a steroid-juiced, 10,000-pound gorilla of our own making staring us squarely in the face.

James Madison said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." So it has come to pass, and with great sadness and irony it has come with no small assist from the conservative movement. The contradiction between the insatiable lust for military action in the "war on terror" and the championing of constitutionalism at home is irreconcilable. After nine years of aggression it’s simply impossible to ignore this truth any longer. Conservatives must reject imperialism and embrace the American tradition of a humble and non-interventionist foreign policy before the consequences here at home are irreversible. Immediate repudiation of the neo-conservative/progressive agenda of aggressive military interventionism is the only way to begin the long, arduous task of restoring liberty in the United States of America.


END NOTE:

This piece was first published on "conservative" website RedState. The moderators at RedState decided that my opinion (which, as you'll see below, they completely distorted) was intolerable and they engaged in outright censorship. They banned me from their website. Here was the byproduct of their censorship, including the change of title and deletion and replacement of the text of this piece. RedState should be ashamed of themselves.

[I will not tolerate apologists for murderers.]
Posted by mshea_34 (Profile)

Thursday, September 30th at 12:44AM EDT
6 Comments

[Particularly those who like to babble about how the decision by vile men to pilot four airplanes into buildings is somehow our responsibility. Read Lileks's 2003 9/11 commentary, instead: it's a good deal more readable and contains pretty much no evil at all. - ML]

Obama's problem with birth certificates

Barack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro; aka Barry Obama; aka Soebarkah; aka whatever his real name is) has a problem with birth certificates. Not just his own, though his inability to produce his own long form birth certificate are well documented. No, now Mr. Soetoro has decided to vocalize his problem with our national birth certificate, our Declaration of Independence.

In a speech given to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (why is there a Hispanic Caucus in Congress?) on September 15, Obama choked on the rousing words written by Thomas Jefferson. It is a self-evident truth that our unalienable rights come from our Creator, but when Mr. Soetoro was reciting those beautiful words written 234 years ago to a segregationist group of Hispanics within the American Congress, he said, "... we are endowed with certain unalienable rights...". Any real student of American history knows what Obama missed, and it's not a surprise to those of us who know Soetoro isn't a real Christian. We are endowed by our CREATOR with those unalienable rights, but the "president" couldn't bring himself to spit out the words he clearly holds in outright contempt. Watch the tape. At about the 22 minute mark, he stammers, frowns, blinks about a dozen times, and deliberately skips the words "our Creator".

This act of profanity is an insult to every American and, what Soetoro described just before defiling the Declaration of Independence, the "faith and fidelity to the values we all hold so dear." I do hold them dear. Most of us hold them dear. But clearly all of us don't hold them dear, right Barack?

The American idea is very simple: our rights come from God. It is a self-evident truth, and Soetoro clearly doesn't like it. He doesn't like the Declaration of Independence and all that it stands for, hence his profane defiling of it. But here's a nickel's worth of free advice, Barry: don't mess with our national birth certificate. And, while you're at it, release your own to the public.

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli: Extremist

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater

Virginia attorney general Kenneth T. Cuccinelli is an extremist, according to the Washington Post. I have been very impressed with the man insofar as his actions as attorney general, but I haven't spent much time exploring who he really is and what he really believes. I think it's fair to say that some Republicans are political opportunists. The question is, is Mr. Cuccinelli? According to Barry Goldwater's standard and the editorial page of the Washington Post, Cuccinelli is a fire-breathing extremist.

Both are correct. Ken Cuccinelli is an extremist, but he is an extremist serving in defense of liberty. America was founded as, says Cuccinelli, "a natural law-based country...". The Founders would agree. Wrote Thomas Jefferson on behalf of the unanimous Thirteen United States of America, "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Jefferson and the Founders appealed to the natural law, the only righteous philosophy of the law, when founding the Republic and writing our beloved Constitution. As Andrew Napolitano explained, the natural law / limited government argument made by Madison won the day over the secular, strong central government argument made by Alexander Hamilton.

So what of the Washington Post? The post makes arguments King George would be proud of. In an article titled 'Mr. Cuccinelli's bigotry', the Post opines "Appeals to "natural law" and "intrinsic" rights and wrongs were the usual cliches deployed to justify the old-time religion of hatred then directed at African Americans, Jews, Italians, Irish and other immigrants." It may indeed be the case that those ideals were invoked to justify bigotry, but the reality of natural law has nothing to do with bigotry.

The natural law is a philosophy of law that accepts the truth that we are created by a sovereign God, and just as he is free we too are free, created in His image that we are. The American Constitution was designed to create a government that passed laws in harmony with the natural law, in order to form a more perfect union. Back to Jefferson: "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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Jefferson acknowledges that the only purpose of law is to serve the laws of nature and of nature's God. This is the natural law that the Post smears as bigotry. This is the philosophy of law held by Kenneth Cuccinelli. This is the foundation of the American republic. And it crystallizes for us the nature of the divide between the "left" and the "right." It is the same debate that took place in the days of the American Revolution: from where do our rights come? The Founders believed our unalienable rights come from a sovereign God who created us all, and ordered the universe in His image. So too does Ken Cuccinelli. The Post seems to agree with the King that rights are bestowed by the rulers.

So, who exactly are the real extremists?

The Democrats didn't misread anything in 2008

Can we please dispense of the notion that Democrats "misread the electoral results of 2008?"

The Democrats didn't misread anything. They lied to the American people, hid their ideological leftism to amass supermajorities, and decided to go for broke while they could.

The Democrats' strategic failure was in going for broke, which, unsurprising to students of Newton's law of action and reaction, prompted the rise of the TEA Parties. Democrats could've had it all if they hadn't ripped their mask off right after the elections. Sadly for them, instead of fashioning a bipartisan stimulus bill that would've provided them future cover for their Marxist shenanigans they decided to ram through the first of many overtly socialist pieces of "legislation" cobbled together through bribery and extortion.

Despite all of that, the Democrat majority's ideological predisposition was known to anyone who can open their eyes and see. Obama spent his entire life around Marxist and communist radicals. Pelosi represents San Francisco, bastion of lawlessness and left-wing lunacy. Harry Reid is, well, Harry Reid: scumbag.

We're forced to endure historical revisionism by the left on virtually everything: the Constitution; the Founders; our Judeo-Christian philosophical foundation; the "separation of church and state". And so on. Let's not add to the abuse of truth by suggesting the Democrats misread anything. They knew exactly what the voters wanted.

And they stuck their collective middle finger up at all of us.

James van Riemsdyk's Night

We interrupt our regularly scheduled relentless assault on all things Obama to bring you news from the ice. The Flyers made history last night, reaching once more into their seemingly endless bag of tricks and found the magic one more time. Game 7: Flyers 4, Bruins 3. Series: Flyers 4, Bruins 3. Fourth team in the history of professional sports to overcome a 3-0 series deficit. Simply amazing.

Typically the Flyers didn't make it easy. Midway through the first period the Flyers found their heroic and historic comeback being trashed by a Bruins team that came in filled with emotion and desire for a quick kill. The Flyers weren't bad during the first 10 minutes, but the Bruins were overwhelming. Bang, bang, bang, three quick goals.

Now down 3-0 and with their season on the brink, Flyers coach Peter Laviolette called timeout. It was anybody's guess who, if anyone, would respond and stop the bleeding. Who would step up and carry the team to victory on this offensively gifted but brazenly undisciplined Flyers team? Would it be big ticket free agent and playoff assassin Danny Briere? Longtime Flyer Simon Gagne? The captain Mike Richards? The old, grizzled warrior Chris Pronger? Maybe Scott Hartnell, whose game was coming to life?

Nope. It was the youngest Flyer, 21-year old rookie James van Riemsdyk. The "consolation prize."

In the afterglow of making history it's easy to forget that JVR was considered the consolation prize of the 2007 NHL Draft. The Broad Street Bullies were dead last in the NHL in 2006 and figured they had a lock on the top pick and with it Patrick Kane, the franchise-changing player billed as "the next Crosby." But after losing all those games in a miserably long season the Flyers somehow, improbably, lost the draft lottery too. Figured. Perfectly shitty end to a perfectly shitty season.

So Chicago swooped in and nabbed the top pick, took the franchise changer Kane, and the Flyers were shocked and stunned and "left with" van Riemsdyk. But James van Riemsdyk was never a slouch. He might not be Patrick Kane (who is) but JVR is a highly credentialed prospect. He had a nice rookie season with 35 points. But he wore down over the course of a long season, and thus far JVR had been silent and lost on the ice all spring, struggling to find his place on the world's biggest stage with the world's finest players.

Then came Lavs' timeout with the season on the line, and suddenly and seemingly without any warning, young James van Riemsdyk responded. He found his game. He started skating and hitting, crashing the net, creating chances for his teammates, and led (yes led) his veteran team to victory. Gagne got the delicious game-winner on a goal-scorers goal, but it was JVR's not-so-pretty first career playoff goal that stopped the bleeding, and his energy that got the team going and kept it moving. It was something special to watch.

And now Kane and van Riemsdyk, two gifted players who could've easily been on opposite teams but for a disastrous draft lottery, both find themselves four wins from meeting for the finest prize of the finest tournament in professional sports. The NHL is a second rate league now (thanks Gary Bettman!), but the tournament and the Cup are still rightfully revered.

The Flyers are a very dangerous team with a confident James van Riemsdyk. If JVR can build on last night's game and keep it going, the Flyers are the favorite in the Eastern Conference Finals.

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Let's take a moment to celebrate and remember.

James van Riemsdyk did something really special last night. With the Flyers' season on the line, it was kid who led the team to victory. I don't know JVR so I don't know if he'll let himself smile because of what he did tonight, or if he's too intense to enjoy the success. But I say give yourself a smile, James, and enjoy it. This was your night, the first of many.

Not bad for a consolation prize.

Obama to the Jews: STFU!!!!!!!

Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court is pathetic. She's not even remotely qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, but she seems to have lockstep support by the Democrats. I know, shocking!!! These are the same people who opposed Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the finest choices for the Supreme Court in American history.

But there's more than just Kagan's lack of judicial scholarship and ability. It's her faith. She's a Jew, picked by a man who sat in a black liberation theology "church" for 20 years. A man whose national security adviser cracks anti-Semitic "greedy Jew" jokes. A man who has repeatedly humiliated Benjamin Netanyahu. So the Kagan pick must mean he doesn't hate Jews, right?

Wrong.

What Obama giveth, Obama taketh away. The "president" has a pretty obvious strategy of distracting with one hand while causing great harm with the other. On the heels of Obama's nomination of a token Jew to the Court, he was busy signing the US up for the blantantly anti-Semitic Alliance of Civilizations. It also blames the US for everything wrong in the world.

Who cares though! He picked one of us for the Court! He really loves us!

Yeah right.

Sit down and shut the f**k up, Jews. Elena Kagan is going to sit on the Supreme Court.