"In her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan said she is a political Progressive and was dismissive of the Declaration of Independence, relying solely on the Constitution for legal decisions. That's a consistent position," writes Jack Curtis at American Thinker.

What's going on? "Progressives don't like what the Declaration declares," Curtis rightly concludes.

Clearly, to dismiss or otherwise drive a wedge between the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Declaration is grounds for disqualifying Kagan from serving as justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

For there is no way she can rightly understand what is at stake in the Constitution if she ignores or rejects the defining and enduring philosophical rationale and basis for the Constitution, as set forth in the Declaration.  

For more on how this so-called "progressive" political philosophy is an extremist and disqualifying position outside of the enduring and liberating American mainstream, please see "Grounds to Reject Elena Kagan Nomination to the Supreme Court."

In addition, as a comment in response to this article in American Thinker notes, Kagan in fact does not like the Constitution, either. For more on this, please see, "How to Kill the Constitution."

Kagan and Co. may market themselves as "progressives," but they are actually "regressives," for they are attacking the foundations of freedom, not just for Americans, but for human beings around the world and throughout history.

To turn back such a radical and foundational assault upon the body politic, what is needed is an equally foundational counter-response, but one which has the added value of being true.

This is the biggest danger that the New Resistance (the Tea Party movement, etc.) poses to regressive "progressives" such as Kagan and Obama and their axis of allies in politics, the academy, in Hollywood, and in the formerly mainstream media.

Related
Kagan Downplays Declaration of Independence
How the New Resistance Can Win the Culture War