The Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the ACLU are filing suit again.  This time, the case involves a painting that has been hanging in Bridgeport High School (WVa) for 30 years.  It is called "The Head of Christ". 

Using the tried (or rather tired) argument that the mere presence of a religious symbol implies an endorsement of an 'official' religion, the ACLU and the Americans United are determined to see the painting removed.

My thoughts on the matter:

If a picture of Jesus in the hallway is endorsement of Christianity, then are condoms in the nurse's office endorsement of teenage sex?

If a picture of Jesus in the hallway is endorsement of Christianity, then is the meatloaf surprise served in the cafeteria an endorsement of anti-vegetarianism?  Where is PETA on this one?

If a picture of Jesus in the hallway is endorsement of Christianity, then would hanging the school superintendent's picture in the main office be equally offensive?  A picture of the president?  Aren't thos endorsements?

If a picture of Jesus in the hallway is endorsement of Christianity, then is encouraging 5 year old kindergartners to act out scenarios between AIDS patients and their doctors an endorsement of homosexuality?  IV drug abuse?  Promiscuity?

If a picture of Jesus in the hallway is endorsement of Christianity, then is a picture of Lincoln an endorsement of the GOP or a picture of FDR an endorsement of the welfare state?

Many people approach sexuality, vegetarianism and politics with religious zeal and the argument could easily be made that for many these ideologies have assumed godlike proportions.  There is also room for the argument that some proponents of these ideologies are far more organized than most religions.  If anything, Christianity is a 'dis'organized religion with sects attacking each other with just as much fervor as they argue for their own cause.  Hardly the horrifying grand puppeteer that it's painted by certain anti-Christian groups. 

True, the Constitution does not offer protection from the non-religious beliefs of others.  This is why we can be beat over the head with any agenda that doesn't mention God.  Schools can endorse premarital sexual activity by teenagers.  They can teach our children that President Bush's tenure parallels the reign of the Third Reich and that abortion was a step forward for women's rights rather than a pathetically irresponsible act. 

Considering the condition of education in America, who cares if they take down a picture of Christ?  It's hanging on a whited sepulchre anyway.

According to Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor of ethnic studies who blamed America for 9/11, public officials who do not share his anti-American stance are out to get him.  From the governor to the University administration, Churchill charges, higher-ups have used their position to convene a "kangaroo court" designed to oust him.

Interestingly, the charges that have concluded with Churchill being served notive of the university's intent to dismiss him have absolutely nothing to do with his inflammatory post 9/11 commentary.  A committee "found Churchill guilty of research misconduct and another panel recommended that he be fired because of "repeated and deliberate" infractions of scholarship rules".  Plagiarism.  Intellectual larceny.  The mortal sin of academia.  That's why Churchill's once rising star appears to be crashing and burning.  And yet, Mr. C would have us believe that he is the victim of a political witch hunt.  How very predictable - to claim 'victim' status.  

  The Denver Channel has the story, which ends with this great statement by CU's interim chancellor Phil DiStefano "A university is a micro-place of ideas, a place where controversy is no stranger. An opinioned discourse is applauded. But as is true of all liberties, enjoyed by all Americans, with freedom, comes responsibility."

Blaming 'the victim' is always wrong , isn't it? 

According to an op-ed in todays LATimes, the fraudulent misuse of funds by Katrina victims represents a huge failure of FEMA's system of oversight. And yet, we needn't be too concerned.

The 16% of improper expenditures is indeed high for a federal aid program — food stamps and unemployment insurance, by comparison, had respective rates of 5.9% and 10.1% last fiscal year. But these are established programs, not on-the-fly responses that had to process a sudden rush of 2.6 million claims. Unlike a permanent safety net, disaster relief's top priority is to help as many people as fast as possible, which comes at the price of reduced efficiency.

But just because FEMA faced a daunting task does not mean it should be given a pass for its sloppy oversight. The GAO cited several quick fixes that should be put into effect immediately, most notably simple tests for misrepresentation when citizens register for federal disaster assistance. FEMA's response thus far — cutting expedited payments to $500 — misses the point and will undercut relief efforts in future catastrophes.

It's easy, and necessary, to criticize FEMA's across-the-board incompetence in responding to the largest displacement of Americans since the Civil War. But obsessing about the spending habits of refugees comes perilously close to blaming the victim.

You got that last bit didn't you?  "perilously close to blaming the victim"  So let me get this straight.  The people who were victimized by Mother Nature shouldn't be scrutinized for buying "Girls Gone Wild" dvds or getting sex change operations on the tax payer's dime.  Nuh-uh.  They're victims.  Just in case any of you are buying this load of manure, let's just put the record straight.  The minute you defraud the rest of your countrymen who are paying taxes to help you in your time of need, you cease to be a victim and become a perpetrator.  If a tightening of the purse strings is necessary to end the rash of bad behavior, then git 'er done, is all I have to say. 

This op-ed's excuse for logic is the culmination of liberal thought and amoral (and often antimoral) ideologies.  There are some liberal thinkers (and I use that word loosely- thinkers) who would have us believe that people are no more than animals, incapable of choosing decent and honest behavior over self-interest.  How incredibly elitist to hold such a low standard for the people of New Orleans.  In essence, the argument is, 'don't worry about the 16% of 6 billion you stole, we didn't expect much from you anyway...' Condescending doesn't even come close to describing the insulting notion of dismissing accountability for $960,000,000. 

By the Times standard, this misuse of our dollars is simply the byproduct of a 'clever and responsive policy'.  You see, the Times believes that people are bound to abuse the system and so we should just accept that fact, blame FEMA and increase oversight.  But then we taxpayers would be the victims, wouldn't we?  Where can we get our $2000 EFT cards?  The Times is right in that some people will abuse the system.  And if we ignore those abuses or blame FEMA for failing to keep victims honest, then we are encouraging more abuse in the future.  It is FEMA's responsibility to get emergency aid to folks, not to teach them moral values like integrity and honesty.  But heaven forbid, we lay any of the responsibility for this theft of our tax-dollars with the people who actually stole/misused the money,  that would come perilously close ... to reason.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett outlines yet another reason to love Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania).  In comments published in today's Washington Times, Puckett claims he'll call Murtha to the stand if the Marines of Haditha fame go to trial. 

Puckett's rationale is so wonderfully simple, it's brilliant.  It has to do with a little thing called CHAIN OF COMMAND.  You see, when a crime is committed by a servicemember, there is a direct chain of command responsibility that starts with the accused and goes link by link right up to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Democrats know this well, as they have tried to imply guilt by reversing the flow of accountability to make George Bush hold the bag for a couple of sick creeps at Abu Ghraib.  The real truth is that responsibility flows from subordinate to superior and with that responsibility come certain legal mandates.  Superiors are responsible for playing judge and jury for their subordinates.  Herein lies the dilemma.

If General Michael Hagee, who briefed Rep. Murtha on Haditha, gave the impression that the Marines involved killed civilians in cold blood, then he has shown an incredible amount of bias for someone in the direct chain of command.  Either Murtha is politicking or Hagee represents a very poisoned well.  And how, pray tell, will these Marines get a fair shake when everyone who participates in their military trials is subordinate to Hagee who, according to Murtha's statements, must've implied guilt before the investigations were even fully under way?

Mr. Puckett, you may just change my mind about trial lawyers ;-)

Wouldn't you know Zarqawi would kick Ann Coulter off the front page?  Another "victim" claiming the headlines!  But seriously, folks...  I've just dropped by to say I'll be signing off for a few weeks.  We'll be transitioning to a new abode and it will be a few days with travel time and getting everything turned on at the new house.  I will also be disabling comments so that I don't have to worry about trolls leaving their droppings on my virtual front porch...  Can't wait to catch up with all of you on the other end of this move from my new Red State address!

BTW,  the LTC had his retirement ceremony on Tuesday - it was strange for me.  I hate being in front of people on the receiving end of applause so I was completely horrified when I was called up to receive my (form) letter from Pete Schumaker.  For those who don't know, the military gives spouse's a frameable thank-you that basically says "We appreciate you ironing his shirts while he was walking on water, beating back the godless hordes and making the world safe for democracy."  LOL;-)  The strangest thing was that through the whole ceremony I was thinking, "Let's just get this over with" and then the band ended the event by playing the Army song.  "And the Army goes rolling along..." suddenly, I was overcome with emotion.  My mind flooded with memories of our first formal military ball.  Of all the times I'd seen the color guard enter a darkened hall and a solitary figure decked out in his dress uniform light a candle at the empty table in the center of the room.  Of the toasts to fallen comrades.  Of the cheers for the corps.  Of all of the beautiful people I've been blessed to know.  Of hails and farewells.  Of baby showers and wives' coffees.  Of funerals and weddings and a million other magical moments. I stood there tears streaming down my face overwhelmed by the sudden feeling of loss and grateful for the incredible life that the LTC and his career have given me.  Thanks again to all who've touched us along the way.  Cate

Jan Chagnon, mother and victim of the American Idol attacker, went on record today to clear up the misunderstanding about the events of her 'assault' and the character of her little boy.

The story ran through the media like a blaze out of control last Thursday when reports came out that 24 year old Cory hit his mother on the head during an argument about the highly rated Fox show "American Idol".

Jan insists the coverage was blown out of proportion because of the Idol connection and that what occurred was really little more than an accident.  “I think (the story’s notoriety) is because it has to do with ‘American Idol,’” she told the Press-Republican last Thursday. “It’s not like he repeatedly hit me over the head. (The media) make it out like he stood there and beat me with a chain with a hook on it. ... I had to get only one stitch.”

Just a little accident except he was drunk and under the influence of drugs because “He was having a relapse from his drug addiction,”.  In the past, Cory has been treated for drug abuse.  Chagnon said Favreau had taken “a bunch of hydrocodones throughout the day” and one pill of Klonopin, a medication used to treat panic disorders. She said he was also drinking 160-proof vodka while they watched the “American Idol” finale.

What seems to be worrying Cory's defense attorney is the fact that Cory may lose his job at a local restaurant which is apparently, "hanging by a thread". 

Favreau was not eligible for a pre-trial release because of a previous violent felony conviction. He was convicted Oct. 28, 2003, in Clinton County Court of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon for having a knife in July 2003.

Jan's point in speaking out?  “... I don’t want him to be made out a monster.” 

ROTFLMBO - I don't want to be mean here, but Jan, Shut up!  You're not helping, hon!

Scanning the headlines tonight to see if or when the ACLU rushes to the aid of the Westboro Baptist Church in it's latest legal encounter. 

Marine's Father Sues Funeral Protesters

As Albert Snyder, of York, Pa. buried his son Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder who was killed in Iraq in March, members of the Westboro Baptist Church did what they do best.  They interrupted the grieving of Matthew's family and friends, the showed utter disrespect for fellow human beings and the good man they were remembering, they called down the fury of God against homosexuals (or so they say) and they just generally annoyed the hell out of everyone present.

Today, AP reports, Mr. Snyder has taken a little action of his own.  He has filed a lawsuit charging invasion of privacy.  It is the first time a service member's family has sued the group but not the first time WBC has dealt with the courts.  In fact, the church has filed complaints with the help of the ACLU against some of the states who've banned their public displays. 

Whatever happens in court, our prayers are with Mr. Snyder and his family.

In this case, it's hard to know with whom to be the most disgusted... the Westboro Batty Church for being so obnoxious or the Aint' gotta CLUe for claiming they have a right to behave so badly.  The real victims in this case are the Snyders.  And homosexuals who, however you read the Bible, aren't hated by God.  He hates acts not people.  And, of course, Baptists and other religious people are victims in this, too,  because Phelps and his inbred congregation makes all of us look rabid psychos. 

Well, would you look at that I finally found some commond ground...   

I'm hit and run blogging today.  It's our last week of school and our last week in quarters.  I did want to pass this link along, though.  It came to me via my sister who is a whiz at games of every kind.  This one is called Drive Like a Kennedy.  You get to collect gold coins and pink elephants while you are dodging guardrails.  It wasn't lost on this motorist that police cars are prolific but don't bother to stop the Kennedy-mobile.  ROTFLMBO.

Pat Buchanan has a write up over at WND that is an almost fatalistic approach to the culture war that aggravates many American Christians.  Two quotes from the article:

What if the free society chooses to become a decadent and depraved society? Do we still owe it allegiance and loyalty? Does a community have the right to impose its values, if those values are rooted in religion, on a minority that disbelieves in those values? We certainly did that during the civil rights era of the 1960s...

...''What makes you think the West is worth saving?'' the priest asked Whittaker Chambers when he visited him in that hospital room in the 1950s. Good question then. Better question now.

Good points in the article and some serious food for thought.  Stay inside the matrix or take the little blue (was it the blue one?) pill...  Up to you, Neo.  But one has to wonder, how the separatist feeling I got while reading Buchanan's piece jives with "Be in the world but not of the world".  And what is a realistic proposal for those of us who agree with the general premise that the nation's "soul" has been sold for a veritable mess of pottage?  What are devoted Christians to do in these times when our values are becoming increasingly unpopular and institutionally obselete? 

Protecting Marriage through State Legislatures has proven meaningless.  Can the Feds do any better?  Odds are there won't even be a convention to consider the Marriage Protection Amendment.  Most pundits argue that 67 votes in the Senate just isn't in the cards.  The truth is that this little exercise is one in "outing" the politicians who refuse to come to the defense of marriage (or homosexuality, depending on which side of the issue you fall).  But laying politics aside, there are much larger issues with respect to homosexuality that need to be addressed.

Many people believe that there is no "homosexual agenda" driving our society to embrace the gay/lesbian lifestyle and that rather, homosexuals are simply trying to gain rights that most people deserve.  There are a variety of sources readily available that disprove this notion.  One pro-homosexuality website contains the transcript of an editorial written by Michael Swift in 1987 for the Gay Community News.  The preface denounces the misuse of Swift's words by the religious right, essentially claiming that the editorial piece was taken out of context and was merely fantastical as the opening line suggests.  The AFA analyzed the piece and has added footnotes to current events that show the actual fulfilment of Swift's "imaginings". 

My only comment is this:  A drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts.  And so far my research does not indicate that Swift was writing under the influence.

Further evidence of a dedicated agenda to normalize this behavior (and ask yourself, if the behavior were normal, would it have to be normalized?) can be found by perusing the Commercial Closet an organization dedicated to pushing the advertising world to present gays and lesbians as a normal and legit part of society through print media and televised ad campaigns.  In fact, the Commercial Closet will send a guest lecturer to explain how marketing has changed over the years and should continue to chage in it's treatment of homosexuals.

A description of the lecture series references the gays in advertising:

The Advertising Sensitivity Program covers eight sections:
1.) Classic Stereotypes - Queens, Predators, Pedophiles, Leathermen & The Village People
2.) Negative: Creepy Looks, Disgust & Violence
3.) Negative: Transgender Tricksters - Bulging Eyes, Gaping Mouths
4.) Negative: Bisexuals - My Cheatin' Heart
5.) Equal: Gay Friends, Family, Neighbors & Colleagues
6.) Equal: Male Fantasies 'Lesbian Chic'
7.) Positive: Transgender: A Spiked-Heel Forward
8.) Positive: Gays Kiss, Date, Marry & Adopt

Remember that Alexander Pope quote I posted a few months back?

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,

As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace. (An Essay on Man, epistle i, l. 217.)

It provides quite the parallel, doesn't it?  There is so much more to say about this issue.  Suffice it to say that I have written and called my Senators, my representative and Mr. Bush on the matter...  for all the good it'll do.

For more on the agenda, check these links.

Frappr has a site for people interested in carrying out the homosexual agenda. Listing that agenda as follows:

1) Destroy the Institution of Marriage!
2) Recruit young people for the Cause!
3) Make Christianity illegal!
4) Ban all references to God in public schools!
5) Covertly slip references to homosexuality into popular culture every day!

Democratic Underground - the liberal virtual hotspot, apparently thinks the whole agenda is funny.  Go figure. (But there's a vast right wing conspiracy!!!!!)

Here's an interesting one if you can stomach it (I chose not to try) of a GLSEN (you know that group that comes into public schools to make sure we all understand homosexual youth and make them feel 'safe') sponsored event where the speaker explains graphically the process of 'fisting' and then teaches the lecture participants how to perform the act.  I had to look up what that act is since I didn't listen to the audio and I don't encourage it.  I'll let the matter rest with the summation that paid public school employees gave the lecture and were teaching students how to be homosexuals.  'Nuff said.

James K. Fitzpatrick has a great piece on the agenda.

Read about one GLBT group in California and judge for yourself.

The homosexual agenda - "Homosexuality is the basis for Western Civilization".

Gay Agenda Unmasked refers to "...the calculated, planned "homosexualization" of America by militant gays and lesbians was encouraged by homosexual advocates Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)."  (More GAU links)

GAU goes on to enumerate the stated agenda as presented in the 1993 Gay Pride March (Wash. DC).

An interesting comment posted by a thoughtful visitor of this site prompted this post.  Michael suggested we stop blaming judges for the current attempt to legally redefine the terms "family" and "marriage".  As I see it, the problem is that those on the opposite side of this issue are using the judiciary as the primary weapon in this political fight.  Here are some examples compiled by Family Leader.

Massachusetts – May 17, 2004: After a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state begins issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This leads directly to schools openly promoting homosexuality and to Catholic Charities being forced to stop placing children for adoptions.

In 2004, the mayors of several cities, beginning with San Francisco, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Sandoval County, New Mexico; New Paltz, New York, and Multnomah County, Oregon). State courts rule those “marriages” invalid, but appeals are pending.

Nebraska – May 21, 2005: A federal judge overturns the state’s constitutional marriage amendment, which had been enacted by a ballot vote of 70 percent.

California – September 6, 2005: The legislature becomes the first in the nation to pass a law mandating legalization of homosexual “marriages.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoes the bill, but proponents say they’ll be back.

Connecticut – October, 2005: Connecticut becomes the sixth state (after California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont) to offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples.

Maryland – January 20, 2006: A Baltimore City judge strikes down the state marriage law, and then stays her order pending appeal.

Georgia – May 16, 2006: A county judge overturns the state marriage protection amendment enacted in 2004 by a 76-percent ballot vote.

Utah – May 16, 2006: The state Supreme Court upholds the bigamy conviction of a former police officer, Rodney Holm. He had challenged the marriage law after being convicted in 2002 upon his third “marriage.” Chief Justice Christine Durham dissents, saying the state law violates the “privacy of intimate, personal relationships” and religious freedom.

Washington – The state Supreme Court will rule soon on a challenge to that state’s marriage law, as will the high court in New Jersey. Both courts are dominated by liberals. Unlike Massachusetts, neither Washington nor New Jersey has a law barring marriages to out-of-state couples whose own states do not recognize “gay” marriage. Thus, if either state begins issuing marriage licenses to couples from the other 49 states, the recipients will return to their own states and file lawsuits challenging not only their state laws but the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (1)

• Congress passed DOMA in 1996 defining marriage for all purposes as only the union of one man and one woman, and affirming that states may reject claims against their marriage laws that do not conform to their stated public policy. Family Leader filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey case and our partners the Marriage Law Foundation has filed amicus briefs in nearly every marriage definition lawsuit across the country. 

Lawsuits filed by homosexual activists seeking to overturn state marriage laws are pending in 10 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Washington.

Readers, where do you think the blame lies?

This is just a reminder that I reserve the right to delete comments that are crude, vulgar, irrelevant or malicious.  It's my online diary - if you don't like it, don't read it.  One particular post that I wrote has created quite the stir and I have had to delete about 10 comments from brave anonymous respondents like "Hang all Muds" (clearly of the neonazi persuasion) and "Albino Excuse" (a black panther supporter, no doubt).  If you feel the need to be angry after reading my blog, please feel free to go hit your pillow and punch the wall but don't litter my virtual playground with your hate-filled garbage.  If, on the other hand, you have a rational argument to make or desire to share your experiences in a reasoned way, the welcome mat is out.

Thanks.

The British are hunting down the latest in jihadi gear:  A chemical bomb vest 

The Anti-American forces in the UK are capitalizing on Haditha.  No surprise there.  But check out the deceitful tactics that the UK Times is employing to enrage the anti-war crowd. 

For even more enlightenment on Haditha take a stroll over the Sweetness and Light, who exposes some interesting facts about the TIME reporter who 'broke' the story.  Don't forget to follow the links at the bottom of this post. 

The California Conservative has a post on the ACLU's efforts to ensure that American students are not required to recite the pledge of allegiance. 

Just One Minute (or wait just a damn minute) when translated to Catespeak, has a great post delving further into the Swift Boat Mystery that John Kerry is determined to resurrect. Question: How can four men fit into a three man boat?  Answer:  They can't.  So just who is the prevaricator?

And before you walk away from the keyboard take a look at Amy Proctor's picture of the week featuring UBL and everyone's favorite military mom.  (Not!)

Back later with commentary - now I'm off to enjoy some wifeness and motherhood!  Enjoy your Saturday!

NBC Dateline aired a report tonight about two star-crossed lovers one year after their nuptials.  The couple, Mary Kay Fualaau and her husband Vili are better known by the roles they had when they first met.  Sixth grade teacher and 13 year old student.  Titled, "A Love like No Other" the report poses the following question: Can a love that just about everyone agrees was wrong at the start age into something acceptable, even beautiful?

Just me thinking aloud here but WTF???  We're painting this child abuse case as a Romeo and Juliet now?  I'll bet the ACLU handling NAMBLA's case is doing the dance of joy.  With NBC doing the heavy lifting of convincing the American public that sometimes it just might be okay to have sex with a child, why bother with the judiciary,  it'll be perfectly acceptable within the next five years.

In a final bit of editorializing, the Primtime narrator says, "To some, theirs will forever be a tainted, even deviant relationship. But Mary and Vili see themselves in very different terms—a triumph of love against the odds."

Aaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww.

*****************************************

And then there's Reuters with a little revisionism playing to the election cycle cynics with an article about Bush pushing for the ban on gay marriage.  A quote: Bush has never made a secret of his views on the issue but has rarely talked about it in public until now.

The article implies that Bush's support for the Marriage Protection Amendment could "rally his wavering conservative base in an election year."

How about a little media spin with your supper, folks?  The truth of the matter is that in February of 2004  the President called for the ban.  The transcript of his comments can be found on CNN.com  For your reading pleasure, I've included an excerpt:

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Thank you very much.

Reuters goes on to insinuate that the President's falling poll numbers have prompted his sudden outspokenness on the issue.  Well, we've already proven that the President was already quite outspoken on this issue as far back as 2and a half years ago.  At that time his ratings were hovering between 48 and 49%.  Curious, eh?  To be so plainspoken on an issue when his base was solidly behind him.  Actually, Mr. Matt Spetalnick, desk jockey over at Reuters, in America, Congress writes the laws. And unless I'm misreading it, Article V gives only The Congress the power to call a convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution.  So no matter what he President says about what should or shouldn't be in the Constitution, the responsibility for such legislative acts falls squarely within the purview of the Senate and the House. 

No liberal media bias?  Yeah right.

I know it's so stereotypical of conservatives to blast the Clintons but I just couldn't pass this chance up. My comments are italicized.

Clinton uses Pederson fundraiser to blast GOP

Former president Bill Clinton keynoted a Phoenix Democratic fundraiser Thursday evening, saying the Republican Party is dominated by "right-wing, white Southerners."  (I guess the first "black" president is now throwing down the race card.  Is "Southerners" supposed to be a slur in this context?  I suppose he would hate the South with so many women down here taking him to court for harrassment... )

Clinton also hit the GOP for favoring the rich and practicing "crony capitalism".  (Like for instance, offering pardons to rich, white party donors named Mark... oops!  That was you, wasn't it, Bill?) 

Clinton headlined a fundraiser for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jim Pederson at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa. (You caught that, didn't you.  A fundraiser at a Resort & Spa -  Doesn't sound like those poor, multicultural Democrats are doing too badly for themselves, huh?)

The event was attended by 500 persons and raised approximately $500,000 for Pederson, who is challenging incumbent U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl in November. Pederson is a shopping center developer, former Arizona Democratic Party chairman and an ally of Clinton and his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.  (The Pederson campaign is going to great lengths to sell their candidate as a man of the people - but guess what he is... another rich white guy.  I guess southern really is the slur since the DNC loves rich, white guys... Not surprising that Pederson is a friend of the Clintons - they LOVE real estate developers.)

Clinton criticized Republicans and the Bush administration for running up federal deficits while approving tax cuts for the wealthy. Pederson pointed out that Kyl is a top ally of President Bush on Capitol Hill.  (Lest we forget that Clinton inherited an economy already on the mend from Bush 41, and a Republican congress that balanced the budget.  I'm not happy with Bush 43 being a shop-a-holic with my tax dollars but let's at least be honest about where the Clinton era economic success really came from.)

The Kyl campaign and Republicans have countered such criticisms by linking Pederson to national Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton,  Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.  (Well, this $500 a plate fundraiser doesn't do much to propagate the myth that the Dems "feel the pain" of the middle and lower class, now does it?)

The Kyl campaign on Thursday also faulted Clinton for not dedicating enough resources and money to border security. Democrats have voiced similar criticisms of Kyl and the Bush administration.  (Blah-blah-blah - both sides lose on border security...)

The former Democratic president faulted Republicans and the Bush White House for no-bid government contracts, deficits and a Medicare drug benefit program that does not allow the federal government to negotiate lower prescription prices.  (ROFLMBO - no-bid contracts are more routine than anyone wants to admit and were they were throughout the Clinton era also.  Medicare drug benefits - it's easy to criticize someone who actually passes a bill you couldn't get through Congress, isn't it WJC?)

Democrats have also attempted to make political gains this election season in light of lobbying and ethics scandals in Washington D.C.  (Yes - yes the culture of corruption that is so one-sided... ho hum (yawn))

Clinton also voiced support for raising the minimum wage above the $5.15 per hour federal baseline. Pederson supports a state ballot question to raise the minimum wage. Kyl has not taken a stance on that state measure but has voted against Democratic efforts to raise the federal pay level.  (This is either blatant pandering,  inexcuseable ignorance, or intentional malice.  Raising the minimum wage does nothing to get people out of poverty.  Absolutely nothing!  Check the figures to see if the percentage of Americans below poverty changes when the MW is raised.  Nope.  Stays relatively stable within the 9-11% range.  Why?  Wages go up. Prices go up to compensate for businesses being forced to pay more to employees.  You think businesses take profit losses to meet the payroll demands of a raised MW?  Wage increases are not the same as an increase in VALUE of the dollar.)

The Kyl campaign pointed out that President Bush hosted a fundraiser for Kyl at the Biltmore last year that raised $1.6 million, said spokesman Andy Chasin. Kyl has also gotten fundraising help from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vice President Dick Cheney.  (Wow - you want some votes, Senator Kyl?  Hand that money over to a contractor to build a darn fence on the border and you'll have more votes than you can count.  The voices coming out of Arizona sound vehemently in favor of some border enforcement.)

The Pederson fundraiser featured top state Democrats, including Gov. Janet Napolitano and Phoenix Congressman Ed Pastor.

In the May 2006 issue of Christianity Today, Stephen L. Carter penned the article "The ACLU Is Not Evil".  Carter's argument appears to be that throwing the word evil around is quite alienating and that, perhaps, we Christians could tone the rhetoric down a bit.  There's definitely truth there.  You can call a spade a spade without hitting people over the head with one.  The problem comes when Carter uses the example of the ACLU to support his argument for a kinder, gentler public discourse.

Carter hails the ACLU as an almost impartial arbiter of the first amendment, referencing cases where the ACLU has defended Christians and their right to free speech.  There are some serious logical flaws with this example.  First of all, it presumes that the ACLU is really concerned with free speech and not with specific social issues.  Oh, to be so naive. 

An editorial written yesterday by John Leo, outlines the case against such an assumption.  As it turns out the ACLU is riddled with special interest lobbies that make donations and influence the practices and policies of the union.  Dissent within the ACLU's ranks is silenced, initially by culture and most recently through institutionalized policy.

Meyers [a former ACLU board member] leveled many criticisms at Romero [executive director of the ACLU], among them: that he is intolerant of dissent, withholds financial information from the board, and cuts funding of ACLU affiliates if they are critical of him. He also says Romero instructed Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, to create a policy restricting board members' rights to speak directly to staff. Meyers said that policy was twice changed. Now questions by board members have to be voted on and agreed to by a majority of the executive committee before Romero will agree to answer.

Meyer suggests that the ACLU has strayed from its traditional free speech roots and is now more closely defined by its politicking for "identity groups".

The second problem with Dr. Carter's ACLU example is a bit more complex.  Carter proposes that if the ACLU does some things that Christians would define as good then it must not be evil.  To which I say, defending a Christian doesn't make the ACLU "good" or even "neutral" any more than sleeping in a garage makes you a car.  The sum of actions levied against Judeo-Christian values is much more of a defining factor in determining the character of the ACLU, as an organization, than the few cases Carter cites.  The BTK strangler didn't kill his own daughter,  does that negate his other evil acts?  Does is mitigate the characterization of him as an evil man?

Leo gives an example of how the union really works.

...the ACLU now has issue-oriented lobbies inside it. They are called "projects" and include the "Reproductive Freedom Project," the "Women's Rights Project" and the "Lesbian and Gay Rights Project." The influence of the projects, and the money they bring in, often tend to sway the ACLU away from its once primary concern about free speech.

For instance, the ACLU came out early against the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a conspiracy statute aimed at the Mafia. RICO always had the potential to be used to curb political dissent, and when defenders of abortion started to use it against anti-abortion protesters, the ACLU waffled and looked the other way. Harvey Silverglate, of the Massachusetts ACLU, said sympathy of abortion rights caused the national ACLU to drop its guard on a serious violation of political freedom.

In 2003, after 17 years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion protesters couldn't be punished as racketeers under RICO. No thanks to the ACLU. The organization still defends free speech, but not always when that speech is directed against a group or an interest it cares about.

On May 12th, Nedd at www.stoptheaclu.org wrote a piece disecting Carter's argument that brilliantly exposes the ACLU's record.  As for me, I find the simplest explanation for Professor Carter's confusion in the words of Isaiah 5:20.  "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil' that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;  that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" 

The western world is confused by ever flattering voices of "learned" men who have redefined "good" by selling the idea that freedom is the chaotic and unfettered liberty to act upon whatever desire you can conceive.  True freedom, Christianity argues, comes from learning not to give into your desires but to become master over them.  And in a society where "evil" means refusing to embrace degrading carnal behavior and uninhibited self-gratification, it is easy to understand Carter's mistake.

A Coos County, Oregon store clerk and store owner were fined this week for selling liquor to a minor.  The Oregon Liquor Control Commission's decoy was apparently, a PYT in a revealing outfit and the store clerk was unable to divert his eyes from here scantily clad body long enough to see the big red lettering across the top of her driver's license which she showed him.

Minor until 2007

In what appears to be almost a strange parody of Jeff Foxworthy stand-up routines, the clerk and store owner are registering their complaints under what seems to be the "She didn't look like she was only eighteen" defense.  Store owner, David Caldwell, is screaming "entrapment" while the store clerk, as yet unnamed, has been contacting OCCL officials in an attempt to secure the decoy's home phone number.

More to follow.... (but for now, we're putting this story in the gimme-a-break file)

Harry Reid has now changed his position on the ethics of accepting gifts.  Reid's spokesperson acknowledges that the Senator "misspoke" when he explained the Senate rules governing the receiving of gifts.

"The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions."

While Reid maintains that he committed no ethics violation, several ethics experts disagreed, "criticizing Reid's rationale that he felt obligated to take the tickets to ensure boxing was being conducted properly in his home state.