Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Fav lines from NYT David Brooks' "No Second Thoughts":

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com
They get all these crazy ideas in their heads, like not wanting to re-elect Blanche Lincoln.
...The Democrats’ problem, as some senior officials have mentioned, is that they are so darn captivated by substance, it never occurs to them to look out for their own political self-interest.
...Democratic House members who voted against health care are doing well in their re-election bids, while those who voted for it are getting clobbered.

As Nancy Pelosi put it at a $50,000-a-couple fund-raiser, “Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where — because they won’t disclose it — is pouring in.”
...Democrats were happy to benefit from millions of anonymous dollars in 2006, 2008 and today; that the spending by Rove’s group amounts to less than 1 percent of the total money spent on campaigns this year; that Democrats retain an overall spending advantage. Read more at www.nytimes.com

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Guess how many times "conservative" was used in WaPo's New Black Panthers article

In the WaPo article "Dispute over New Black Panthers case causes deep divisions," the authors took pains to tell readers that anyone questioning the NBP case was conservative, with no mention of any liberals or how far left the NBP is.

Total number of times the following words are written in the article:

conservative: 8

Republican: 7

Democrat: 4

liberal: 0

progressive: 0

left: 0

Get that? The two words conservative and Republican - 15 times.

The four words Democrat, liberal, progressive and left - 4 times

And here's one paragraph where "conservative" is written 3 times!

Amplify’d from www.washingtonpost.com

Adams, 42, was assigned as the lead lawyer. A voting section lawyer since 2005, he would later resign over the Obama administration's handling of the case, publicizing his views in conservative media. Administration supporters call him a conservative activist; other Justice Department lawyers say his views, while conservative, did not influence his work.

Read more at www.washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Church, State and the First Amendment: What Coons needs to know

I read this article by Ken Paulson, the President of the First Amendment Center and had to respond to almost everything he wrote.

Church, State and the First Amendment: What O’Donnell needs to know

Sometimes political debates generate light as well as heat.

Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's question "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" in an exchange Oct. 19 over teaching creationism in public schools tells us something about her but also reminds us of how often America's bedrock principles on government and religion are misunderstood.

Democratic candidate Chris Coons was quick to tell O'Donnell that religion and government are kept separate by the First Amendment.

"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" she responded.

Indeed it is.

Indeed it is NOT!  O'Donnell explicitly asks where in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state" appear and when Coons wrongly asserts it is in the First Amendment she seeks to clarify that he is indeed making the false statement that it is in the First Amendment.

Here's a quick take on what the First Amendment says -- and doesn't say:

Keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is a core principle of the First Amendment. The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Keeping government out of religion is spelled out in the first 16 words, but what in those words keeps religion out of government and where are the words "separation of church and state" that Coons says can be found there?  

That means government can't limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others. [Yes].  It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America's public schools.   

Um, whaaaaaaat???  That is quite a leap!  Maybe that part can be found in the mythical version of the Constitution where the words "separation of church and state" appear...

The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of American ideals for centuries. As early as 1640, Rhode Island founder and theologian Roger Williams cited the need for "a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."

Perhaps a better indication of the cornerstone of American ideals comes from the Declaration of Independence.  This non-secular document signed by the Continental Congress acknowledges that our rights are given from God.  It also references "Nature's God," "a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence," and "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World."  Does this sound like the beginnings of a nation that would want to keep church and state separate?

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, would later explain the need for this separation, saying, "religion and Govt. will both exist in greater purity,  the less they are mixed together."

Madison says church and state are respectively best when their joining is kept to a minimum.  That is not the same as saying that there must be a separation of church and state, nor is it saying that that is what was intended in the First Amendment. 

Fortunately, there are Congressional transcripts that can tell us what was discussed DURING the drafting of the Bill of Rights:

"Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen.  He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.  He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent..."

Clearly Madison's concern was the establishment of a national religion on the whole country - kind of like how there's a Church of England - and NOT with abolishing religion from government altogether.

The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. That's true, [Thank you!] and O'Donnell's camp now says that's what she really meant.["NOW" says?  It was clear from the beginning that was what she meant!] The phrase stemmed from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He cited the language of the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church and State." This was not just some poetic flourish. This was one of the nation's founders and author of the Declaration of Independence explaining exactly what the First Amendment means.

At least Paulson is careful here in saying that Jefferson was a founder and author of the Declaration - he was NOT an author of the Constitution.  In fact, he was in Europe while it was being drafted and his letter was written 10 years after the First Amendment was ratified.  While Jefferson is certainly an important forefather whose opinions are key to our understanding of the founding of our nation, he was not present and did not participate in the debates on the Bill of Rights and thus could not "explain[] exactly what the First Amendment means."

Later in the debate, O'Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short.

Welcome to the club. First Amendment Center surveys show that most Americans can name just one freedom in the First Amendment and only one in 25 can name all five — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the rights of petition and assembly.

"Welcome to the club"??!!  That's all he gets for not knowing a basic tenet of the Constitution?!  While O'Donnell gets a long lecture despite her being correct that "separation of church and state" is nowhere written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?!

Obviously this article was not written to inform or correct the record on the First Amendment, but to provide political cover for Coons' errors and continue the incorrect narrative that O'Donnell didn't know her Constitution.  

DC Schools Take Over Role of Parents - At Your Expense!

Yes, that's right, let's have the state take the burden off parents to raise their children.

And GREAT NEWS - you are paying for this!!!

Amplify’d from www.myfoxdc.com

DC Students Receive Dinner at School

Getting kids to eat three healthy meals a day can be a challenge, especially if money is tight. But D.C. Public Schools have found a way to take some of that burden off parents. They are now serving dinner at school.

And the best news of all is this is a federally-funded program.

Read more at www.myfoxdc.com

Friday, October 15, 2010

First Lady above the law cuz she's "well liked" & "doesn't know what she's doing"

Yeah, um, I don't think that's the standard for the law...

Amplify’d from drudgereport.com
First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law -- when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!

"You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?" the official explained late Thursday. "I mean, she's pretty well liked and probably doesn't know what she's doing."
Read more at drudgereport.com

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

On COC: This is exactly the point

The Chamber of Commerce is already being harassed by the Administration, why would they want to open up their donors to the same thing?! It would absolutely chill free speech - who would donate to non-profit causes they believed in if it would open them up to harassment by union bullies and Obama's thugs? That is exactly why they want those names - so they can intimidate the donors, launch investigations against them, and thus silence them.

Notice how they are not attacking any liberal organizations or unions who have the exact same circumstances as the COC - this is purely a political witch hunt designed to bring down Obama's enemies. It has NOTHING to do with transparency or fair elections - if so, Obama can start with HIMSELF and his own party

Bottom line: Dems are desperate and want to blame their upcoming losses on anything but themselves and their destructive policies.
Amplify’d from dailycaller.com
Chamber of Commerce’s position that disclosure of their donors would expose them to harassment, such as protests by labor unions at the homes of health insurance executives.
they don’t want to subject their donors to, in their view, harassment and intimidation from allies of the administration,” Tapper said.Read more at dailycaller.com

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Wanted: Another Massachusetts Miracle - Beat Barney Frank!

Two things I never thought I'd see in my lifetime: the Red Sox win the World Series (and it happened TWICE!!!) and a Republican in Kennedy's seat (the PEOPLE's seat!)

I am now a believer in miracles! Never say never - anything can happen, you just gotta believe!

Now we have a chance to send Bahney Frank back home to his boyfriend's gay prostitution ring.

Bahney's rap sheet is a mile long, but perhaps his worst crime against the country was "rolling the dice" with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and helping usher in this recession by refusing to provide any oversight or reform to prevent their magnificent collapse of which he and others had PLENTY of warning.

We need another Massachusetts Miracle to get this guy out of office and begin our recovery. So get out there and help Sean Bielat beat Bahney Frank in MA-4! I just donated: http://seanbielat.org/

A GOP unknown is in striking range of Barney Frank

He began to think about running but didn't make a final decision until Jan. 19, when a certain Republican won election to the Senate from Massachusetts -- and did it by winning in Frank's district. "When Scott Brown won the 4th Congressional District, it became clear that not only could a Republican win here," says Bielat, "but there was a case to be made nationally to donors and supporters that this is winnable." Read more at www.washingtonexaminer.com