Saturday, December 24, 2005

Power Line: The Washington Crime Wave Continues 

Dear Mr. John Hinderaker,

Using the threat of nuclear attacks to justify shredding the constitution is about as idiotic as using the threat of nuclear attacks to justify fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought. The Bush administration has done both, but you continue to support them. How strange.

I notice that you decide to go after the leakers of the news that the Bush administration is breaking the law with warrantless searches. People who leak information like that are often considered whistleblowers. People who point out when the government is shredding the constitution are patriots in my book. How about yours?


Power Line: The Washington Crime Wave Continues: "Another scandal--Bush is protecting us against nuclear attack! U.S. News reports:"

Paul Mirengoff Loses Touch with Reality Based Community 

You can't make this stuff up. Paul Mirengoff of Powerline Blog suggested tonight that Democrats are in panicing about President Bush's improving poll numbers.

He then goes on to suggest a statement by Alan Colmes on FOX News is representative of all Democrats. Anyone who uses a FOX News Democrat to draw their opinions of Democrats is clearly misguided and severly detached from reality.

I would hope that Mr. Mirengoff would agree that regardless of any poll numbers, it's a sad day for America when our president thinks he has the authority to spy on Americans without court approval.

Power Line: Panic attack: "There are signs of panic among Democrats as President Bush's poll numbers improve, with the prospect of additional improvement when the American presence in Iraq diminishes. Tonight, a rather desperate Alan Colmes criticized the Bush administration for attacking Congressman Murtha and other Democrats when they called for troop withdrawal, even though Bush knew he would be withdrawing troops soon."

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Catholic Schools Steal Children's Innocence 

A few local (St Paul / Minneapolis) Catholic parents seem to find something to fear around every corner. Their latest nightmare involves Catholic school curriculum involving child safety and touching. While most reasonable and sane people would assume that Catholic school curriculum on an issue like this is designed to teach children the difference between good and bad touches, this particular group of concerned Catholic parents think their :

In this Archdiocese they have yet to inform parents exactly what "child safety" curriculum will be used for the 2006-07 school year. Parents need to be vigilant! The children's curriculum they choose could very well be one of the problematic, age in-appropriate programs such as: CHILD LURES; TALKING ABOUT TOUCHING; GOOD TOUCH -BAD TOUCH, etc.

Parents be sure to stay alert - your children's innocence may be in danger!

May God bless you and yours during this beautiful Christmas season!

What really makes this interesting to me is Colleen's over-the-top concern about what's being taught in Catholic Schools. Apparently, the Catholic Schools falling under the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis is either attempting to molest the children sent to their schools, or turn them into young whores. It's not entirely clear how exactly they plan to take away their pupil's innocence.

I'm not a parent, nor am I familiar with the the various "Good Touch - Bad Touch" programs being taught today. However, that doesn't stop me from believing that a person who believes the Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minnesota is planning on stealing their pupil's innocence is not a member of the reality based community.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Senate Roll Call on Arctic Drilling - Forbes.com 

Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman appears to have flip flopped on his Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) protection position:

Senate Roll Call on Arctic Drilling - Forbes.com: "The 56-44 roll call Wednesday by which the Senate voted to block oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge as part of a defense bill. Sixty votes were needed to stop debate on the issue and allow a vote on the defense bill.

On this vote, a 'yes' vote was a vote to stop debate and proceed to a vote on final passage and a 'no' vote was a vote to continue debate. "

How did they vote:

Coleman (R) Yes; Dayton (D) No.

Norm Coleman from Marchh 16th, 2005:

"March 16th, 2005 - Washington, DC - "When I ran for the Senate, I pledged to oppose drilling in ANWR. Today I kept that commitment. I was proud to vote again this year to strip ANWR drilling out of the budget because it is a distraction from where our focus should be. We need to do more to reduce America?s increasing dependence on foreign sources of oil and reduce energy costs. But whether we can do that by drilling in ANWR is uncertain. What we do know ? especially in Minnesota -- is that we can achieve this goal by expanding the use of renewable fuels like ethanol, biodiesel, and wind energy."

President Bush has Repealed the 2nd Amendment 

We have checks and balances for a reason:

The 2nd Amendment has been repealed: "What Bush has just done is to say that the Constitution no longer dictates what he can and can't do as president. That means your rights under the Bill of Rights are no longer absolute or guaranteed, they're no longer the law of the law, they're now just simple 'suggestions' without teeth, that can be brushed away by the federal government whenever it sees fit. If the Bill of Rights no longer give us absolute protection against our government, and can be overruled at a whim by that government, then the protections they afford no longer exist - they no longer exist.

The same logic that Bush applies to the 4th amendment applies to 1st or the 2d or any of the others. Bush has now established the precedent that his power as commander in chief overrules ANY protections you have in the Bill of Rights, and that would include the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And as Bush has been doing all of this in secret - we only found out because the story apparently leaked to the New York Times THREE YEARS after Bush brushed the Constitution aside - how do YOU know that Bush hasn't already begun secretly violating the constitutional and legislative rights of gun owners, to further the war on terror, of course? And even if he hasn't, yet, who's to say he, or any future president, won't sometime down the"

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?