So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was "pre-empted" by federal immigration law.

With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona's inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder's Justice Department.)

But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona's law. It's reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.

Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona's law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict -- such as "sanctuary cities" for illegals or California's medical marijuana law -- or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.

If Obama thinks there's a conflict, I believe he's made a damning admission. There's a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is to ignore its own immigration laws.

Field pre-emption may arise, for example, in the case of federal health and safety laws, so that manufacturers of cars, medical devices and drugs aren't forced to comply with the laws of 50 different states to sell their products nationally.

And yet, just over a year ago, the Supreme Court held that there was no "field pre-emption" even in the case of an FDA-approved anti-nausea drug because Congress had not explicitly stated that state regulation was pre-empted.

The drug, Phenergan, came with the warning that, if administered improperly (so that it enters an artery), catastrophe could ensue.

In April 2000, Phenergan was administered improperly to Diana Levine -- by a clinician ignoring six separate warnings on Phenergan's label. Catastrophe ensued; Levine developed gangrene and had to have her lower arm amputated.

Levine sued the health center and clinician for malpractice, and won.

But then she also sued the drug manufacturer, Wyeth Laboratories, on the grounds that it should have included more glaring warnings about proper administration of the drug -- like, I don't know, maybe a flashing neon sign on each vial.

Wyeth argued that since the Food and Drug Administration (after 54 years of study) had expressly approved the warnings as provided, state tort law was pre-empted by the federal drug regime.

But the Supreme Court held that Congress had to make pre-emption explicit, which it had not, so Levine was awarded $6.7 million from Wyeth.

If ever there were a case for "implicit pre-emption," this was it. Without federal supremacy for the FDA's comprehensive regulation of drugs, pharmaceutical companies are forever at the mercy of state and local laws -- and trial lawyers -- in all 50 states.

As much as I would like pharmaceutical companies to rot in hell for their support of ObamaCare, I might need their drugs someday. Now, drug prices will not only have to incorporate R&D costs, but also the cost of paying for trial lawyers' Ferraris. (Perhaps that should be listed as a side effect: "Caution! Improper use may cause nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, and six new houses for John Edwards.")

But the point is: According to the Supreme Court's most recent pre-emption ruling, Arizona's law is not pre-empted because Congress did not expressly prohibit state regulation of illegal aliens.

In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the pre-emption argument against state laws on immigrants -- including laws somewhat at odds with federal law, which the Arizona law is not.

In the seminal case, De Canas v. Bica (1976), the court held 8-0 that a California law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants was not pre-empted by federal law.

The court -– per Justice William Brennan -- said that the federal government's supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: (1) a "determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country," and (2) "the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain."

So a state can't start issuing or revoking visas, but that's about all it can't do.

Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants who enter legally or the condition of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they "legal entrants."

Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there's even "a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States." (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)

So there's no "field pre-emption" of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of aliens.

On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona's law is no more pre-empted than the rest of them.

Unless, of course, Obama is right and it's a violation of federal law to enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of Justice's lawsuit.

The two main points being made by Democrats in support of Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court merely serve to remind us that Democrats are inveterate liars.

First, it has been repeatedly observed how wonderful it is that Ms. Kagan is "someone who's an intellectual heavyweight who's going to give Roberts a run for the money" -- as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., put it.

Whew! Good thing the Democrats got that Hispanic nominee out of the way, so they could appoint somebody with intellectual heft! Hey! What happened to the "wise Latina"? At least now you know what liberals really think of you, Sonia.

Second, liberals are raving about Kagan's "skill at building a consensus ... reaching out and building coalitions" -- as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said last week.

It's as if they're talking about a governing majority in the Senate. Next thing you know, liberals will be complaining about a "do nothing" Supreme Court.

Get some things done? Amy Klobuchar is not considered a lunatic, but this was a crazy, giveaway moment. (Durbin is not considered a lunatic, just a hack.)

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "getting things done." Durbin's and Klobuchar's statements reveal a massive misunderstanding of the role of the court.

Congress, as the people's elected representatives, is supposed to "get things done." If they don't, that usually means the people don't want those things done. It's not the court's job to say: "Hey, Congress, you forgot to enact this! Don't worry, we'll take care of it."

But liberals see the Supreme Court as their backup legislature, giving them all the laws Democrats can't pass themselves because they'd be voted out of office if they did.

Can't get Americans to approve of abortion? Get the Supreme Court to do it! Can't get Americans to ban the death penalty? Get the Supreme Court to do it! Can't get Americans to release criminals? Get the Supreme Court to do it!

Usually Democrats denounce the idea that they want an activist judiciary as a vicious, right-wing lie. But now they're complaining that the court's not activist enough -- and they need Kagan up there to "get some things done"!

Despite the herculean efforts of liberals to redefine "judicial activism" as "overturning laws," the two acts are completely unrelated.

It would be like redefining "terrorist" to mean "airline passenger." Some airline passengers are terrorists and some aren't -- indeed, some battle the terrorists. The two have nothing to do with each other, although, sometimes, both notions come together and you get an airline passenger who's a terrorist -- and blows up the plane.

It makes as much sense to say, "Republicans say they're against 'judicial activism,' but conservative justices strike down laws more than liberals do!" as it does to say, "Republicans claim they're against terrorism, but they fly more than Democrats do!"

Different things.

As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the proper role of judicial review in a constitutional democracy, the courts have the last word "as to whether a law passed by the legislature conforms to the Constitution."

It would be every bit as "activist" for the Supreme Court to refuse to strike down a law that violated the Constitution -- e.g., Chicago's anti-gun laws or Congress' restriction of free speech via the campaign finance laws -- as it is for the court to strike down laws that do not violate the Constitution.

We know that laws restricting speech and the right to bear arms violate the Constitution because it says so. The very first two items in the Bill of Rights prohibit the government from infringing on -- I quote -- "the freedom of speech" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." You can look it up yourself.

If Congress passed a law banning books critical of the Supreme Court and the court refused to strike down that law, that would be "judicial activism."

Historically, judicial activists have preferred to strike down laws that are perfectly acceptable under the Constitution than to let unconstitutional laws stand. Constitutionally permissible laws include laws against abortion and laws providing for the death penalty.

We know that laws prohibiting abortion do not violate the Constitution because neither abortion, nor its synonyms, nor anything vaguely resembling abortion, is mentioned -- much less granted protected status -- by the Constitution.

And we know that laws providing for the death penalty are permitted by the Constitution because it goes on and on about capital crimes. The Fifth Amendment, for example, says:

-- "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury";

-- "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb";

-- "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

States are free to ban the death penalty on their own, but the Constitution requires only three things for the imposition of a death sentence: a grand jury indictment, no double jeopardy, and a hearing. The End. Love, the Founding Fathers.

And yet, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty -- even with those three safeguards -- as "unconstitutional" from 1972-1976.

Several justices -- including Kagan's mentor, Justice Thurgood Marshall -- continually voted to ban the death penalty, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly, repeatedly, unquestionably provides for capital punishment.

That's how liberals "get some things done." That's judicial activism.

In The New York Times' profile on the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, her aunt was quoted as saying: "There was thinking, always thinking" at the family's dinner table. "Nothing was sacrosanct."

Really? Nothing was sacrosanct? Because in my experience, on a scale of 1-to-infinity, the range of acceptable opinion among New York liberals goes from 1-to-1.001.

How would the following remarks fare at a dinner table on the Upper West Side where "nothing was sacrosanct": Hey, maybe that Joe McCarthy was onto something. What would prayer in the schools really hurt? How do we know gays are born that way? Is it possible that union demands have gone too far? Does it make sense to have three recycling bins in these microscopic Manhattan apartments? Say, has anyone read Charles Murray's latest book?

Those comments, considered "conversation starters" in most of the country, would get you banned from polite society in New York. Also, unless you want the whole room slowly backing away from you, also avoid: May I smoke? I heard it on Fox News and Merry Christmas!

Even members of survivalist Christian cults in Idaho at least know people who hold opposing views. New York liberals don't.

As Kagan herself described it, on the Upper West Side of New York where she grew up, "Nobody ever admitted to voting Republican." So, I guess you could say being a Democrat was "sacrosanct."

Even within the teeny-tiny range of approved liberal opinion in New York, disagreement will get you banned from the premises.

From this, I conclude that having gays serving openly in the military is "sacrosanct" for liberals.

Having gays NOT serve in the military is a position held by lots of people in other parts of the country, but I do not recall any Christian colleges banning military recruiters because the schools believed "Don't ask, don't tell" went too far the other way.

Not only is every weird, shared delusion of the New York liberal deemed sacrosanct, but what ought to be sacrosanct -- off the top of my head, human life -- isn't.

As Stan Evans says, whatever liberals disapprove of, they want banned (smoking, guns, practicing Christianity, ROTC, the Pledge of Allegiance) and whatever they approve of, they make mandatory (abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, pornography, condom distribution in public schools, screenings of "An Inconvenient Truth").

When liberals say, "nothing is sacrosanct," they mean "nothing other Americans consider sacrosanct is sacrosanct." They demonstrate their open-mindedness by ridiculing other people's dogma, but will not brook the most trifling criticism of their own dogmas.

Thus, for example, liberals sneer at the bluenoses and philistines of the "religious right" for objecting to taxpayer-funding of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine, but would have you banned from public life for putting Matthew Shepard in a jar of urine, with or without taxpayer funding.

These famously broad-minded New Yorkers -- "thinking, always thinking" -- actually booed Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he showed up at the opera after pulling city funding from a museum exhibit that included a painting of the Virgin Mary plastered with close-up pornographic photos of women's vulvas.

(The New York Times fair-mindedly refused to ever mention the vulvas, instead suggesting that the mayor's objection was to the cow dung used in the composition.)

Has a decision to fund or not fund "art" ever gotten a politician in any other part of the country booed in public? And how might the Times refer to citizens booing a mayor who had withdrawn taxpayer funding for a painting of Rosa Parks covered in pornography?

If New York liberals insist on bragging about their intellectual bravado in believing "nothing is sacrosanct," it would really help if they could stop being the most easily offended, P.C., group-think, thin-skinned weanies in the entire universe and maybe ease up on the college "hate speech" codes, politically correct firings, and bans on military recruiters.

With that in mind, here are some questions it would be fun to ask a New York liberal like Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan at her hearings next week:

-- Roughly one-third of Americans are Evangelical Christians. Do you personally know any Evangelical Christians? Name two.

-- In 1972, Richard Nixon was elected president with more than 60 percent of the vote, winning every state except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. How many people do you know who voted for Nixon?

-- Appropriate or inappropriate: Schools passing out condoms to seventh-graders? Schools passing out cigarettes to seventh-graders?

-- Who is a greater threat to America, Sarah Palin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Democrats have decided that Alvin Greene's surprise victory in the South Carolina Democratic senatorial primary must be the result of a Republican dirty trick.

Greene beat Vic Rawl, a former state representative and judge, with a whopping 60 percent of the vote in last Tuesday's primary, despite Greene's having no job, no house, no campaign website, no campaign headquarters -- indeed, no campaign. Other than paying the $10,000 filing fee, Greene seems to have put no effort into the race whatsoever.

But he does have one thing Rawl doesn't have: In the grand tradition of legendary Democrats such as Teddy Kennedy, Greene has a felony arrest. (Greene's inexperience really shows here: Democrats usually wait until after they're elected to show pornography to college girls.)

So this is not good for the Democrats. Naturally, therefore, they're blaming Republicans.

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., has demanded that the U.S. attorney investigate, ominously suggesting that Greene may be a Republican plant. Clyburn is the third-ranking Democrat in the House.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann interviewed Greene as if he had Lee Harvey Oswald in the dock. Chris Matthews asked guests: "Do you think this has the look of a dirty trick -- sort of a Watergate number?" Watergate, you'll recall, involved the Nixon White House trying to persuade a mildly retarded black man to run for the Senate.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)

The key to Greene's victory, you see, is that he got more votes. How do liberals imagine Republicans pulled that off? Mesmerize the Democrats into voting for an idiot? If Republicans could do that, John McCain would be president.

There is zero possibility that Republicans skipped their own primary to vote for Greene in the Democratic primary. The marquee South Carolina election in last Tuesday's primary was the four-candidate, mudslinging Republican gubernatorial primary. That one was so heated, it's still to be decided in a runoff next week.

Even Sarah Palin got involved in the race, endorsing Nikki Haley (though not endorsing anyone in the Nevada primary, as I incorrectly gave her credit for in last week's column).

Not surprisingly, more than twice as many South Carolinians voted in the Republican primary (424,893) as voted in the Democratic primary (197,380). Not only that, but a higher percentage of Republican primary voters chose a candidate for Senate (97.12 percent) than did the Democratic primary voters (86.24 percent).

Perhaps realizing this, liberal loons (Keith Olbermann) are now pushing the theory that Republicans somehow ... rigged the voting machines! (This is what happens when you know absolutely nothing about politics but are given a TV show.)

I promise you, if Republicans could have rigged any voting machines, they would have made sure Nikki Haley won by 51 percent, instead of 49 percent, to avoid next week's runoff.

The only thing a Republican could possibly have done is pay Greene's filing fee. It's likely that someone paid his filing fee, inasmuch as Greene doesn't appear to have enough money to buy a sandwich.

But anyone could have paid it -- ACORN, a community organizer, a stimulus grantor, Betty White. If a Republican paid the $10,000 filing fee, why not give Greene another hundred bucks for a campaign website? Or how about making it $150, so Greene could buy a new suit?

But, for the sake of argument, let's say a Republican paid Greene's filing fee. Even the worst-case scenario is still not half as bad as what liberals did to Sen. Patrick Leahy's Republican opponent in 1998. To the delight of the media, liberals ran a simpleton dairy farmer, Fred Tuttle, in the Republican primary that year against a millionaire lawyer, Jack McMullen.

As in the South Carolina race, the serious candidate, McMullen, spent far more than the prank candidate -- by about $300,000 to $200.

And as with Greene, Tuttle was a feeble-minded everyman. He had starred in a movie, "Man With a Plan," made by his Harvard-graduate neighbor, about a cornball farmer who runs for Congress. Having "Fred" actually run for the Senate was openly described as a publicity stunt.

Fred won the primary and promptly endorsed Leahy.

The media lavished praise on the "gentlemanly" Senate race, with The Associated Press calling it a "calm, folksy Senate campaign." Reporters think there's too much "mudslinging" when the Republican candidate doesn't immediately endorse the Democrat.

The movie starring Fred was run on PBS, sponsored by Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and Fred -- the winsome simpleton -- was fawned over throughout the media. (CBS' Bill Geist to Tuttle: "Are you a sex symbol?")

That's a far cry from how reporters are treating poor Alvin Greene:

CNN anchor Don Lemon: You're mentally sound, physically sound? You're not impaired by anything at this moment?

Greene: No. Just -- I'm OK.

Lemon: No, just what?

Greene: I'm OK.

Lemon: Quite honestly, you don't sound OK. Are you impaired by anything right now?

Greene: No.

I suppose you could say the Republican primary in Vermont was irrelevant anyway since Sen. Leahy was a shoo-in for re-election.

But so is Jim DeMint, Alvin Greene's current opponent. Leahy won his prior election, in 1992, 54.2 percent to 43.3 percent. Jim DeMint won his last election, 53.7 percent to 44.1 percent.

And Alvin Greene is clearly more qualified to be a senator than Patrick Leahy.

I cannot be the only one who feels as if every new day brings a new assault on this nation and its people by this administration. Indeed, many people I know say they can't even watch the news anymore because it's so depressing. And it is.

Some of these assaults occur under the radar, and others are right out in the open. As an example of the former, last week, President Obama issued an executive order "Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council," which will focus on "lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings)." It will even recommend changes in federal policy to reduce "sedentary behavior."

The order also creates an advisory group within the Department of Health and Human Services that will answer to the surgeon general, who will serve as the chairwoman of the council.

In case you're wondering what authority the president launched this program under, he covers that in the first paragraph of the executive order: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered..."

The socialized medicine nightmare is already beginning. Many of us warned that Obamacare would serve as an all-purpose justification for government intervention in every aspect of our lives. Have we become so far removed from our founding principles that we don't grasp the perniciousness of such government encroachments into our private lives and personal liberties?

You must read the executive order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-establishing-national-prevention-health-promotion-and-public-health. Then you'll understand that the council and "Advisory Group" it establishes will not be merely advisory. The provisions of this "order" underscore the disturbing extent to which Obama and his band of authoritarians intend to control our lives.

The "Advisory Group," in consultation with the council, must submit, by March 23, 2011, a "national strategy" to "set specific goals and objectives for improving the health of the United States through federally supported prevention, health promotion, and public health programs, consistent with ongoing goal setting efforts conducted by specific agencies."

The council, among other things, will "develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders," a strategy to promote health and prevent disease. Relevant stakeholders?

Under this administration -- and every administration that follows, now that socialized medicine has enveloped our society -- will everything be reduced to a calculation of dollars and cents? Will we tolerate any manner of government control over the most minute aspects of our lives under the rationale that we have to improve our lifestyles to get healthier so that health care costs don't bankrupt us? Does liberty mean nothing to us anymore?

If the abstract concept of liberty doesn't rock your boat, how about a little common sense? If Obama had been primarily interested in reducing health care costs, he would have introduced market solutions instead of a bill guaranteed to add enormously to the national debt -- about which this administration egregiously and repeatedly lied. More information is surfacing every day proving that the bill will cost billions more than Obama claimed. He may end up imposing cost controls under Obamacare, but if he does, you can be assured that they will be at the expense of quality care, especially for seniors.

Lifestyle behavior modification is none of the government's business, but it is even less the prerogative of a renegade, unaccountable executive acting outside the law through unconstitutional executive orders. On that point, by the way, please check out Section 3G, which provides that the council will "carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President." No limitations, just whatever this omniscient president determines is appropriate.

There is no excuse -- none -- for any existing or prospective congressman to fail to comprehend the magnitude of the revolution that is now occurring inside our government. Any candidate who downplays or whitewashes the gravity of the ongoing assaults against our liberties must be defeated. Any congressman who suggests we can just tinker around at the edges of Obamacare and strip away its most noxious provisions -- as opposed to "repeal and replace" -- must be defeated.

In the meantime, in full view of the radar, Obama is now demanding another $80 billion stimulus plan, as well as $50 billion more in deficit spending to bail out state and local governments, $23 billion of which will be earmarked for government teachers unions.

This is mind-boggling. Nothing will deter this man's thirst to radically change America, including controlling every aspect of our lives and redistributing money to his friends and preferred recipients.

I don't know which is more pathetic, President Barack Obama's TV threat to "kick ass" or Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin's suggestion that Matt Drudge's provocative headline concerning the threat intentionally played to the alleged racism of his readers.

As much as I'd like to lampoon Obama for talking tough against oil spillers to compensate for his grossly negligent aloofness on the matter, I'll go with the sanctimonious Halperin, who needs to remove his blinding liberal filter.

Obama's exact words in explaining why he consults government experts concerning the oil spill were, "We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."

Unfortunately, neither black nor white liberals will let Obama's comment or certain reactions to it pass without turning it into an incident with racial implications. The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart wrote, "African American men are taught at very young ages (or learn the hard way) to keep our emotions in check, to not lose our cool, lest we be perceived as dangerous or menacing."

Similarly, Halperin got exercised over Drudge's headline "Obama goes street: seeking 'ass to kick,'" which, according to Halperin, "includes this photo of an angry-looking Barack Obama. I think it's all pretty clear to all of us what's going on."

In the first place, the Drudge photo was tame compared with many Obama pix I've seen. I would describe Obama's expression as more contemplative than menacing. Maybe Halperin is projecting here, too. Do you think he instinctively regards Obama's cerebral pose as menacing? Did someone whip Mark's fanny growing up?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think of Drudge's headline in racial terms at all -- even the use of the term "street." What that word does bring to mind is thuggish Chicago street politics in the style of the very white Saul Alinsky, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod -- maybe even Bill Ayers.

Halperin said, "If you're an African-American man in this country and you're trying to get political leadership, you can't get angry in public without having it play symbiotically in a bad way." "Symbiotically"? I watched the video and read the transcript, and that's the word he used. I'll assume Halperin meant "symbolically" but was injecting reverse street language. But I regress; I mean "digress."

What possible evidence does Halperin have for this assertion, other than his own distorted biases -- biases against black men and white conservatives? Personally, I loved it when Clarence Thomas showed a little righteous indignation in the face of his "high-tech lynching" by Senate Democrats who were bigoted against black conservatives.

Show me a black man (or a white man or even a turquoise man) expressing anger at Obama's destructive policies and I'll show you a uniformly positive reaction among all conservatives, for whom race is wholly irrelevant. But we can't expect the preprogrammed Halperin to comprehend such counterintuitive ideas as colorblindness inheres in conservatism, which brings me to the most troubling of Halperin's regrettable lines.

In assessing Drudge's headline, Halperin said: "(Drudge) thought it would be cool and hip, but he knew full well that it was provocative and racial. I'm not saying that that makes Matt Drudge a racist. What I'm saying is Matt Drudge knows how to tap into the sentiments of a lot of his readers."

Don't gloss over Halperin's revolting charge here. Who does Halperin mean by Drudge's "readers"? He isn't talking about himself or his fellow liberal journalists, who visit Drudge as the CIA would surveil domestic terrorist cells. He means -- plain as day -- conservatives.

And what is he saying about us conservatives? Simply that as the bigots he thinks we are, we are ripe to be roused to racially charged fear and anger and other forms of disapproval against Obama if we observe him displaying anger.

What abject and offensive absurdity! Speak for yourself, Mark, my boy. We don't need anyone telling us how or what to think. To begin with, your entire premise is wrong. Obama isn't even close to being angry. He's feigning anger for political purposes, and anyone with half a wit, including us right-wing Cro-Magnons, can tell the difference.

I don't deny that Obama scares me and evokes other negative sentiments in me and millions of others. But not one of those sentiments has anything to do with his skin. They have to do with his destructive agenda.

Mark: Your unwarranted leap into racial hysteria is simply a reflection of your own warped sentiments. You should holster that wagging finger and refrain from fomenting racial discord that you only pretend to decry.

Sarah Palin endorsed three dark-horse candidates in Republican match-ups this year, and all three won their primaries yesterday: Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California. No wonder Sarah's being stalked by Joe McGinniss.

Now, she's got to endorse Rob Simmons for U.S. Senate. Otherwise, Republicans can kiss the possibility of a major upset in Connecticut goodbye.

I wouldn't ask, but the country is at stake. We have a mere 100 senators; only 16 Senate seats currently held by Democrats are up this year; and only about six of those could possibly go Republican, even in Newt Gingrich's wildest fantasies.

Republicans have done a fantastic job predicting a landslide in the November elections, but not such a good job of doing anything that will actually help them achieve victory.

Which may explain why Connecticut Republicans rolled the dice and said: Let's run a professional wrestling "impresario" for the U.S. Senate! ... You never know.

Except in this case, you know. Running a professional wrestler in the richest, most highly educated state in the nation is going to force voters to hold their noses and vote for the Democrat, Richard Blumenthal (who's already been endorsed by a leading group of Connecticut men who lied about serving in Vietnam).

Until recent revelations about Blumenthal's boasting of his nonexistent service in Vietnam -- and the Harvard swim team -- Republicans didn't have a snowball's chance to pick up Chris Dodd's old seat anyway.

Blumenthal immediately resigned and pulled out of the Senate race ... ha ha, just kidding! That man will never voluntarily stop annoying us. Blumenthal is so churning with ambition that he probably had his first ulcer at age 9.

But no matter how much the local press flacks for Blumenthal, people won't soon forget that he lied about his Vietnam service. It's like finding out he likes to wear diapers or he cheated the Girl Scouts out of cookie money -- but enough about Frank Rich.

Connecticut Republicans have done nothing to deserve this gift. All they need to do is field a candidate who isn't inextricably linked to professional frigging wrestling.

Instead, last month, a majority of Republican caucus-goers voted for professional wrestling impresario Linda McMahon, based on her offer to spend "up to" $50 million of her own money on the campaign.

McMahon would be a fantastic choice if money were associated with electoral victory. But it's not.

We know this because rich dilettantes are constantly thinking to themselves: "I have $300 million, I've bought everything I can buy ... I think I'd like to be a senator!"

In 1994, Michael Huffington spent $30 million in his bid for a Senate seat from California against Democrat Dianne Feinstein. He lost.

In 2002, Tom Golisano spent more than $74 million of his own money running for governor of New York. He received 14 percent of the vote. That same year, Democrat Tony Sanchez spent $60 million of his own money trying to become the governor of Texas -- and lost to Rick Perry.

In 2004, John Kerry spent $6.4 million of John Heinz's money on his presidential race, and still lost.

Last year, Jon Corzine, then-governor of New Jersey, spent about $24 million of his own money trying to hold onto his job. Despite outspending Republican Chris Christie 3-to-1, Corzine lost 49 percent to 44 percent. (Corzine also out-slimed Christie in that race by an whopping 106-to-1.)

In all, 20 candidates for the House or Senate in 2002 spent at least $1 million of their own money on their campaigns; 19 of the 20 lost, generally to more experienced candidates.

Even in the rare cases when the deep-pocket candidate wins, it's not a novelty candidate -- unless it's Minnesota. Michael Bloomberg, the sitting mayor of New York City, spent an astronomical $100 million last year just to win his own office back, outspending his opponent 15-to-1. He squeaked in with 51 percent of the vote -- and that was only after Bloomberg passed a massive new tax on voting for his opponent.

So Republicans better have a more impressive reason for picking Linda McMahon than "She'll spend up to $50 million of her own money."

But they don't.

Any half-wit knows Connecticut will not vote for a professional wrestling "impresario" for the U.S. Senate. So unless Republicans have secret information that Blumenthal does enjoy dressing up in diapers, Republicans are forfeiting a Senate seat for no reason.

By contrast, Rob Simmons, who recently suspended his primary campaign against McMahon for lack of money, is a Haverford College graduate, a former Yale professor and an Army colonel. Unlike fantasist Blumenthal, Simmons really did serve in Vietnam, coming home with two Bronze Stars.

And Simmons, who remains on the Aug. 9 primary ballot, can win even in moderate-Republican Connecticut. He's good on taxes, he's good on defense -- and he's the best Connecticut is ever going to get.

Simmons was elected to Congress three times from a very liberal Connecticut district, beating an incumbent Democrat in his first run. As a result, he had the distinction of representing the largest number of Democrats of any Republican in the House of Representatives. Even in the dark Republican year of 2006, Simmons lost to his Democratic challenger by only 83 votes.

Instead of sitting around, idly predicting massive Republican landslides this fall, how about Republicans work on running candidates who might actually win?

If only we had some popular former governor, preferably a moose-hunter, whose endorsements are gold ... Then we'd show 'em.

Watching TV this week, at first I thought Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul had flown a commercial jet into the World Trade Center. But then it turned out that he had only said there ought to be discussion about whether federal civil rights laws should be applied to private businesses.

This allowed the mainstream media to accuse Paul of being a racist. Twisting a conservative's words in order to accuse him of racism was evidently more urgent news than the fact that the attorney general of the United States admitted last week -- under oath in a congressional hearing -- that he had not read the 10-page Arizona law on illegal immigration, the very law he was noisily threatening to overturn.

And really, how could the U.S. attorney general have time to read a 10-page law when he's busy doing all the Sunday morning TV shows condemning it?

Eric Holder's astonishing admission was completely ignored by ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, Time or Newsweek, according to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.

I just want to say: I think it's fantastic that the Democrats have finally come out against race discrimination. Any day now, maybe they'll come out for fighting the Cold War. Perhaps 100 years from now, they'll be ready to fight the war on terrorism or champion the rights of the unborn.

It would be a big help, though, if Democrats could support good causes when it mattered.

But as long as the media are so fascinated with the question of why anyone would want to "discuss" certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, maybe they should ask Al Gore why his father was one of the leading opponents of the bill.

Or they could ask Bill Clinton, whose mentor, Sen. William Fulbright, actively supported segregation and also voted against the bill. Or they could talk to the only current member of the Senate to vote against it, Democrat Bob Byrd.

In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the act, compared with only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the law, compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.

With even all Democrats coming aboard on opposition to race discrimination (and it only took them 45 years!) I think we can stipulate that everyone in America is opposed to discrimination against blacks.

Now let's talk about the "civil rights" lawsuits that are actually brought in modern America. Today's "civil rights" lawsuits have nothing to do with black Americans. Worse, blacks are used as props to benefit the Democrats' favored constituencies: feminists and trial lawyers.

Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum pioneered the technique, running ads against Republican Ellen Sauerbrey in the 1998 Maryland gubernatorial race, accusing her of having "a civil rights record to be ashamed of." To really drive the point home, Shrum's ads showed sad-looking black people in front of a mural of Africa.

Of course, if I were forced to appear in political ads for Bob Shrum, I'd be sad, too.

But the only "civil rights" bill that Sauerbrey opposed had nothing to do with blacks. It was a sexual harassment bill that was so silly that Democrats in the Maryland legislature helped kill it.

Similarly, the vast bulk of "civil rights" lawsuits today have nothing to do with race. Although plaintiffs will jam every possible allegation of discrimination in their complaints, in 2009, according to the website of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, 65 percent of all civil rights claims brought had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.

These days, a typical federal "civil rights" case is the one brought this year by the Game Fowl Breeders Association in New Mexico claiming their "civil rights" have been violated by a state law banning cockfighting.

Another modern "civil rights" lawsuit charged that a McDonald's restaurant violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by hanging a bathroom mirror two inches too high for people in wheelchairs. The error was made when employees replaced the original mirror, which had been destroyed by vandals, with a shorter one.

The restaurant owner, Ron Piazza, corrected the problem as soon as it was brought to his attention, but he got sued anyway. Curiously, the plaintiffs had retained their McDonalds' receipts, allowing them to claim damages for 27 separate visits to the restaurant.

And of course there are all the lesbians shutting down high school proms across the country because they can't take their girlfriends to the dance as the Founding Fathers intended.

This year's graduating class at Itawamba Agricultural High School in rural Mississippi will never have a school senior prom because the ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of Constance McMillen demanding that she be allowed to bring her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.

With cockfighting bans and heterosexual proms, Martin Luther King's work remains unfinished!

Half a century ago, Democrats beat up the Freedom Riders. Today the Democrats insult the Freedom Riders by comparing them to irritating lesbians, lawsuit-happy disabled persons and cockfighters.

The question is not whether the federal government should be telling private businesses they can't engage in race discrimination. The question is whether federal civil rights laws should prevent any discrimination other than race discrimination.

Liberals have a learning disability when it comes to the impracticability of socialism. They are so steeped in the seductive lies of false compassion that no amount of logic, history or everyday experience registers. Thus, they continue to burden the market system to an unsustainable level.

Liberals have always denied they intend to unduly shackle the free market. They say America is exceptionally prosperous -- though it never occurs to them why -- and can afford robust entitlement and redistributive schemes. But in no way would they favor anything extreme that would push the market to the tipping point.

Well, now that they are completely in charge, we've seen what they will do. Obama liberals believe not in America's promise (and Martin Luther King Jr.'s hope) of equality of opportunity, but in equality of outcomes. Truth be told, Obama probably believes in a wholesale reversal of wealth distribution: not just equalizing it, but making the wealthy poor and the poor wealthy. But I'll leave the psychoanalysis to others.

Largely because of their worldview differences, conservatives and liberals will never agree on the moral merits of capitalism versus socialism.

Conservatives believe, generally, that economic and political freedoms are interconnected and that socialism, beyond the obvious, constricts and eventually smothers political liberties. (Hat Tip: Friedrich Hayek.) They believe that our rights are a gift from God and that it is both immoral and counterproductive for a central government to confiscate a major portion of some people's work product and transfer it to others. Nor is any man entitled to moral bragging rights for presiding over government-coerced theft.

But we're not going to reach a consensus on these moral questions, and liberals will continue to demonize, bully and attempt to shame conservatives with their phony moral arguments and ignore the overwhelming empirical evidence contradicting their intractable views.

But don't be so sure, at least not of Obama liberals. They seem to believe that America's success was some kind of historical accident or the result of collective malfeasance on the part of our forefathers and all those who succeeded them up to November 2008. They don't just want to change it, but punish it.

But even liberals less extreme than Obama are applauding his "transformative" change. What they don't understand is that this radical change cannot occur without punishing America and most Americans.

In their insatiable desire to rearrange the seating around the economic dinner table, they're converting the dinner hall to the Titanic and the dining room chairs to deck chairs. With their ever-expanding government and increasing regulatory control, they are sapping the lifeblood out of this country -- and bankrupting it. Even if they can't agree that stealing people's work product is immoral, can't they see that the end result of that confiscatory act is overall financial destruction -- a radical constriction of the economic pie and diminution of our economic and political liberties? No amount of moral preening can wipe clean the moral bankruptcy of economic and political despair born of good intentions.

Sadly, these notions simply do not compute with them and so they reject the evidence that proves it. Thus we have a jubilant David Leonhardt, economic columnist for The New York Times, celebrating that Obama has ushered in a "new progressive period (that) has the makings of a generational shift in how Washington operates" and that rivals "any other since the New Deal in scope or ambition." Leonhardt appears to approve the income redistribution in Obamacare, the financial reform bill and the "stimulus."

Leonhardt says that the "theme" of Obama's agenda has been "to lift economic growth while also reducing income inequality." But "by focusing on long-term problems, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have given less than their full attention to the economy's current weakness."

Leonhardt just doesn't get it. It's not that Obama has not focused enough on the economy because he's been preoccupied with his agenda. It's that his agenda is incompatible with fixing the economy because it is destroying the human spirit and its capacity for productivity, not to mention that it, and his method of implementing it, are wholly inconsistent with any powers the framers' contemplated for the federal government.

The "most open and transparent" president in American history is still playing hide-and-seek with the press, and even the liberal New York Times has begun to notice it, as indicated by this headline: "Obama Turns His Back On the Press."

If the mainstream media were not so ideologically wedded to Obama's big-government agenda, they would be doing more than pointing out his secrecy and hypocrisy with the occasional headline. They'd be skewering him daily for his marked inaccessibility. Not having a genuine news conference since July would be remarkable for the least transparent administration, let alone one that made openness a signature campaign issue.

But not everyone in the leftist press is exercising such restraint about Obama's media blackout. CBS News' Chip Reid decided to ask Obama a question following his signing of the Freedom of the Press Act. Doing his best Hugo Chavez, Obama said, "I'm not doing a press conference today, but we'll be seeing you guys during the course of this week."

HotAirPundit posted a video of Reid explaining that he asked the question because the irony of Obama's signing the Freedom of the Press Act while rarely fielding questions "in impromptu situations" was "too rich to resist." Reid asked, "Mr. President, in the interest of press freedom, might you consider a couple of questions on BP?"

When Reid took Obama up on his noncommittal pledge and tried to ask him a question at the Rose Garden "news conference" with the president of Mexico a few days later, Obama ignored him.

This should surprise no one. A case could be made that Obama's never had a news conference that he hasn't largely controlled. He and his handlers, from David Axelrod to Rahm Emanuel, understand the importance of managing the press to control the message in the interest of advancing the leftist agenda.

But his handlers also realize, even if Obama doesn't, that the less scripted he is the more difficult it is to manage the message. And they understand that he ought not be allowed to venture too far from the teleprompter very often, lest he demonstrate that his manufactured reputation both for eloquence and wisdom are, well, manufactured. Oh, yes, and don't let me forget those manufactured bipartisan myths, but surely no one is clueless enough to pay any attention to those anymore.

There's just no telling what he might say off the cuff, whether it's an awkwardly inappropriate "shout-out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow before delivering curiously disconnected remarks on the Fort Hood massacre or telling Joe the Plumber we need to spread the wealth around a little or saying, "At a certain point, you’ve made enough money."

But Obama's repeated gaffes tell me that he's too narcissistic to fully grasp that he often undermines his own cause when off-script because he can't refrain from playing his hand.

But I would bet that in their inner-circle huddles, Obama's handlers have somehow persuaded him -- because he always must be the boss -- to studiously avoid unscripted moments like the plague, leave the message scripting to the choreographers, and deal with any press blowback through damage control. That's a much lesser evil than getting off-message.

In one of his extemporaneous moments at Hampton University, he unwittingly disclosed the administration's MO, not that discerning observers didn't already know it. He openly lamented the advent of the "24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter."

He might as well have just directly said it: "I don't like the free flow of information in the new media, which tends to impede the advancement of my agenda, which depends on keeping the public in the dark."

That is exactly the philosophy of his appointed "diversity czar," Mark Lloyd, who idolizes Hugo Chavez and believes freedom of speech must be subordinated to the left's "greater" societal goals, and of his Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, who complained about the "overabundance" of ideas that might require government action to "un-skew."

Think about it: Without Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the new media shining the light of truth daily, populist lies, such as that the Arizona law is racist and discriminatory, might go unchallenged.

We are dealing with a totalitarian mindset in this administration, and it might sound more civil to candy coat that fact, but it doesn't serve the interests of truth or of the nation.

Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!

That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.

Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.

The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!

But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as The New York Times reported.

The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.

Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate ObamaCare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?

Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.

Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.

For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.

Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.

Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.

Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."

For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.

How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.

No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.

Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey -- what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?

As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"

As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.

Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.

After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)

But now we find out from a front-page article in The New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" -- he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.

He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)

Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!

Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.

Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor -- who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.

But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!

Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less "amateurish" and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.

Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)

That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.

Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.

Either the five liberal justices demanding constitutional rights for terrorists are out of their minds, or the religious worship of President Franklin D. Roosevelt has got to stop. According to liberal logic in the war on terrorism, FDR was a bloodthirsty war criminal.

When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.

The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.

Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).

Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.

How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?

But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.

So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")

We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief's constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don't have the technology. (The New York Times hasn't gotten around to printing it.)

The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi's district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony "constitutional rights" liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.

President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they're Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.

(Recall that Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)

Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don't have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.

(Note: This is only a partial list.)

The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.

President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, once wrote that Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judicial nominees should explore a "nominee's set of constitutional views and commitments." By all means, let's accommodate her and begin exploring.

We could start with the presumption, given Obama's ideology and judicial philosophy, that any nominee he chooses will be troubling for advocates of judicial restraint and interpreting the Constitution according to its original understanding. But let's put that aside for this little exploration.

On my initial research, a number of problematic areas have surfaced. Consider, for starters:

--She has no judicial experience and hardly any experience practicing law. She's mainly been an academic. I confess this one bothers me less than others, for I believe an intellectually honest academic, with proper respect for the Constitution, could make a fine appellate judge.

--Kagan, as dean of Harvard Law School, joined an amicus brief in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit and another brief to the Supreme Court challenging a congressional law that denied federal funding to universities that didn't allow military recruiters access to their campuses. Kagan was outraged at the military because of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which banned openly homosexual men and women from the service, once calling it "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."

Like Obama and Marshall, Kagan apparently believes the court exists to protect the little guy against evil corporate America, not to interpret the Constitution and the law as written. It's also interesting, is it not, that Marshall used the phrase "corporate fat cat" long before Obama adopted it -- as part of his class warfare rhetoric -- to slander financial institutions. But don't just gloss over the leftist buzzwords "despised or disadvantaged." What groups do they mean by "the despised"? Perhaps they mean those who don't agree with their radical idea of unconstitutional wealth redistribution "despise" recipients of such extreme wealth transfers. Or maybe they're implying that conservatives "despise" minorities. Don't scoff. I've heard such toxicity before from leftists.

At the outer extreme is a view espoused by another Obama appointee, "regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein. In a Harvard Law Review article, Sunstein wrote that "homosexuals are subject to a deeper kind of social antagonism, connected not only with their acts but also with their identity." He went on to say that homosexuals are "members of a despised group," which some want to "isolate and seal off" because they are "thought to be in some sense contaminating or corrosive" and "not fully human."

--The next problematic passage from Kagan's Marshall tribute was her boastful recitation of Marshall's declaration that "the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective.' ... The Constitution today ... contains a great deal to be proud of. '(B)ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty,' 'justice,' and 'equality.'" Kagan said, "Our modern Constitution is (Marshall's)."

--In a Harvard Law Review article in 2001, Kagan wrote, somewhat gleefully, that the most important development in administrative law in the last two decades was the "presidentialization of administration -- the emergence of enhanced methods of presidential control over the regulatory state." Former President Bill Clinton, said Kagan, faced "for most of his time in office with a hostile Congress ... turned to the bureaucracy to achieve, to the extent it could, the full panoply of his domestic policy goals." Sound familiar? Remember when Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said that because much of Obama's legislative agenda had stalled in Congress, he planned on "an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities"?

It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not referring to Tea Party activists!)

This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.

After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pahk-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.

In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that -- contrary to the terrorists' wishes -- Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."

First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.

"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!

If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.

The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.

In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."

He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.

He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them -- i.e. building them flush toilets.

He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.

There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.

Despite favorable reviews in The New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.

So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.

There's no other line of defense. In the case of the Times Square car bomber, the Department of Homeland Security failed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed, the CIA failed and the TSA failed. (However, the Department of Alert T-Shirt Vendors came through with flying colors, as it always does.)

Only the New York Police Department, a New York street vendor and Shahzad's Rube Goldberg bomb (I do hope he's not offended by how Jewish that sounds -- Obama can apologize) prevented a major explosion in Times Square.

Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.

To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.

Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.

Contrary to the wild excuses being made for the federal government on all the TV networks Monday night, it's now clear that this was not a wily plan of federal investigators to allow Shahzad to board the plane in order to nab his co-conspirators. It was a flub that nearly allowed Shahzad to escape.

Meanwhile, on that same Monday at JFK airport, approximately 100,000 passengers took off their shoes, coats, belts and sunglasses for airport security.

But the "highly trained federal force" The New York Times promised us on Oct. 28, 2001, when the paper demanded that airport security be federalized, failed to stop the only guy they needed to stop at JFK last Monday -- the one who planted a bomb in the middle of Times Square days earlier.

So why were 100,000 other passengers harassed and annoyed by the TSA?

The federal government didn't stop the diaper bomber from nearly detonating a bomb over Detroit. It didn't stop a guy on the "No Fly" list from boarding a plane and coming minutes away from getting out of the country.

If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?

Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of the Islamic faith. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information?

And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen in April 2009?

Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?

The NYPD can't be everyplace.