Why Kagan looks moderate to Obama

Elena Kagan, Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, is, by the standards of all but a handful of Americans, a radical, an extremist, a zealot – someone who would kick U.S. military recruiters off campus because the Congress of the United States has mandated that all branches of the armed forces not welcome openly and practicing homosexual personnel.

Her college writings show her to be a hard-left socialist, longing for a viable collectivist movement in America.

Then, of course, there are her actions after Sept. 11 when she helped shield Saudi Arabia from lawsuits filed by families of the victims of that terrorist attack.

I could go on and on – and, I promise, I will in the days ahead. I will do everything in my power to expose this woman's agenda and her history.

The ultimate expose on the radical nature of our 44th president: "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists"

But this is not a column about Elena Kagan.

It's a commentary about Barack Obama, the bitterly, hopelessly anti-American president who nominated her.

Elena Kagan is the natural pick for Obama.

He telegraphed nominees like this way back in 2001 as a second-term Illinois state senator when he was interviewed on Chicago Public Radio's "Odyssey" program on WBEZ 91.5 FM. You can listen to it with your own ears right here.

But here are the key comments about the nature of the Supreme Court and how he would change it: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order; as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK.

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted – and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

That is worth reading over and over, again, if for no other reason than to have a frame of reference for teaching your children and grandchildren about the way the Constitution of the United States is being shredded by this administration and Obama's cohorts in the Congress.

The Warren Court wasn't radical enough for Obama. He wants one that is more radical – one that is willing to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" and mandate "redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society."

Do you get the picture?

Does this explain Elena Kagan?

Do you understand now that Obama is building a tyrannical regime in which unaccountable government officials overrule the Constitution and dictate to the American people the way things are going to be?

Could it be any clearer?