Free Web Site Counter
University A Conservative Harvest: July 2005

Friday, July 29, 2005


A hunter's best friend Posted by Picasa

Sunday, July 24, 2005

A Boston Tea Party …(Cheaters Never Win)

President Bush made a very bold choice this week for Supreme Court Justice. Some of you may think it would have been bolder to pick a woman or a minority candidate rather than John Roberts for the Supreme Court nominee. Not so. What President Bush did was bold in a much deeper sense. He picked a candidate who is a faithful catholic for the Supreme Court.

There is nothing liberals hate more than a catholic that walks the walk. Oh, they certainly don’t mind the type of catholic that Kerry and Kennedy portray themselves to be; that is a catholic that has it both ways. The liberals disdain a true catholic Supreme Court Justice so much there are rumors they will be bringing up Mr. Roberts's wife during the senate hearings. She is very active in pro-life organizations and the Charles Schummers of the world feel if John Roberts won’t answer any direct questions on abortion then maybe they can surmise his beliefs from those of his wife’s. Never before has a Senate hearing on a justice nominee ever involved questions of the spouse, until possibly now. Why, because the left is scared, scared to death. Abortion rights is the alter from where they worship and if they need to conduct a job interview with the mention of the candidate’s spouse, they will.

With each new instance of the Democrats trying to change the rules of the game to suit their needs, it becomes more evident it is like playing a game against a cheater. Every time you think you have the game won the cheater invents a new way to play until the outcome is in their favor. Democrats however fail to realize that it is true, cheaters never win. The American public voted for a President who said he would choose a judicial nominee who would interpret the constitution as it was written and not legislate from the bench. Mr. Roberts is such a person and because he is the left must resort to cheating. Mr. Roberts's wife had a front-page story about her written in this week’s Sunday New York Times. I have a hunch if she were an abortion doctor who had conducted 500 abortions in the last year we would not have heard a word about it but instead over the next few weeks she will be a major topic of conversation because the one-thing cheaters are good at is cheating.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

A Boston Tea Party …(The Rule Of Law )

The qualities necessary to make a Supreme Court Justice will be hotly debated in the next couple months. The potential prospect of President Bush being able to name two nominees will make the fight that more intense. Far left liberals like Kennedy and Shummer are stating they will ask specific questions about how a potential nominee will vote rather than trying to surmise from his/her previous judicial rulings.

The question all liberals want answered is whether or not a potential judge feels a woman has a right to choose an abortion. While this is a very important issue I thought it might be good to list a few other questions liberals are conveniently failing to ask.

1. Do you feel it is a freedom of speech to post nude children on the internet?
2. Do you feel NAMBLA (north american man boy free love association) should be allowed to promote the raping of boys in its literature?
3. Do you feel the United States Supreme Court should base some of its rulings on the court rulings of foreign countries?
4. Do you think municipalities should be able to force a private citizen to sell his property to another private citizen?
5. Should terrorists be given access to the American judicial system?

While it is true abortion is the mother of all liberal causes, the questions listed above will help decide whether or not the next supreme court justice is a strict constitutionalist or not. President Bush has a rare opportunity to help reverse the many bizarre decisions the courts have made over the last 25 years. Lets hope he uses it on a justice who will bring moral clarity and common sense back to the rule of law in this country.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

What Are You Thinking …(The Crusade)

In case you haven’t noticed we have a lot of child molestation going on. Each day brings a new sexual predator to the fore. In the past weeks predator Joseph Duncan is the main topic of conversation. As news continues to filter out on how he was able to operate in society, my outrage is reaching volcanic levels. In no particular order these are my comments.

I have never had to post bond therefore I evidently am a little naive about the subject. I would assume you need cash or a certified check to post bond. WRONG! In Becker county in Minnesota and god knows how many other counties across the country one can actually write a personal check with insufficient funds and walk out of jail. Kinda shocking isn’t it? It seems to me then the amount of money needed for bail is not important since the potential exists for the check to be worth nothing more than the paper it is written on. Us citizens expect those who make these laws to protect us. If one can write a bounced check we are left to wonder what other moronic laws are in place. The problem is you and I will never know……..we don’t commit crimes…..we only hear about such stupid laws after something tragic has happened.

Is there anything more slimy than listening to a politician or governmental agency announce a change to a stupid law after a tragedy happens and the investigation reveals what moronic law allowed it to take place. Becker county announced this week they are now not accepting personal checks for bail postings. I know the family in Idaho feels a lot better now. Our esteemed congressman Earl Polmeroy could not let this tragedy pass without using it for his advantage. He announced this week that he is sponsoring a new federal law for minimum sentencing for child sexual predators. Predictable! Politicians from each side of the isle do this. Where were you 2..3…5…10 years ago Earl or are these sick criminals committing these horrendous crimes only in 2005? I am quite certain Earl would not be sponsoring any bill if the criminal who committed the crime had not been living near his district. I did not hear about him sponsoring legislation after Jessica Lunsford was killed in Florida. In fact it is the politicians who are at the root of this problem. They have not had the political stomach to make laws that would protect us. They should be blamed and kicked out of office rather than congratulated for writing a new law with some poor child’s name on it. Give the credit to the person who takes his place in office because the current official failed in his duty.

Florida has enacted a minimum 25 year prison sentence for first time offenders. Bill O’Reilly has taken up the issue and is reporting that only 15 states have tough laws on the books. North Dakota is not one of them. Minnesota is debating it thanks to the leadership of Governor Tim Pawlenty. South Dakota is one of the 15 states. The governors from the other 35 states are offering all types of excuses. They range from waiting for the legislature to act to a belief that all judges in their state are tough on crime. The citizens of the 35 states MUST DEMAND that their governors champion laws like Florida has enacted. If not they must be removed in favor of someone who will. The laws need to take any judicial interpretation out of the equation. We do not need to spend time trying to understand “the sexual predator” instead we need to make our neighborhoods safe for kids to be in the front yard.

It is time for this generation of parents to take some responsibility. It is time to put down the cell phone, stop running your kids to practice, stop the hustle of every day life, and pay attention. We are failing our kids………we aren’t requiring our elected officials to be responsible. In the end it will not matter how many trophies your child won, how great he/she did in school but rather did they grow up feeling safe. The attitude of it “will not happen to me” just will not work anymore. There are thousands of sexual predators that can’t even be located. The time has come to get pissed-off and do what is right. Get informed and those that fail to protect us must pay the price. Child safety needs to be the topic of every parent’s conversation not who Tom Cruise is marrying or if your favorite team won the baseball game last night. Some of us are outraged and we are waiting for the rest of you to join us. With all the child sexual predators among us, it is only a matter of time until it does happen to your child. Tougher laws for these subhuman beings must be the crusade of every parent. It begins in your neighborhood, your city, your state, after a movie, during your child’s baseball game, or out at the sports bar. Parents must become engaged.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

A Boston Tea Party …(Don’t Hold Your Breath)

Those Brits should have followed our lead. It is perfectly evident after the four bus and subway bombings British security has not done what we in America have. I mean we have not been attacked since 9/11. Evidently the British should be replicating the security measure we have here in the United States.

Great Britain should have closed its border securely like we have done here. No one can penetrate our vast borders without the worry of being caught. Our government has done such a great job of tightening our borders from terrorists and illegals. All of America sleeps better at night knowing we have done all that is humanly possible from a terrorist entering this country over land.

What is that you say? We have not closed our borders. I don’t believe it, I am quite certain our politicians would place the security of its citizenry ahead of a few illegal’s votes. Remember we have not been attacked in nearly four years.

Another thing Britain must not have done as well as we have here in the states is placing a priority on terrorism. Our President talks about terrorism all the time. I am quite certain each time he meets or talks with representatives of other countries that terrorism is the main subject of conversation. Until the threat is eliminated terrorism will always be America’s focus.

What? Your telling me at the G-8 summit last week terrorism was not even on the agenda. The leaders of the most important countries in the world didn’t even feel it necessary to discuss terrorism. I don’t believe it; I mean we have not been attacked in four years on our own soil.

Ok, ok so what if the previous security measures are not being taken care of. It is painfully obvious the Brits must not have had the proper priorities on the way they implemented their security measures. I bet they spend just as much money on the smaller populated areas as they do on larger cities like London. In America we would not spend our security dollars so evenly. We would base our security funding on the degree of the threat.

No way ……I don’t believe you. You are certain the American congress is spending the same amount of money on the state of North Dakota as it is the state of New York. No way. Our congressmen would not treat security dollars the same way they do pork spending. How else do you explain us not being attacked since 9/11?

From what you are telling me we are treating homeland security not much differently than we do child molesters. The crisis aversion does not begin until the attack takes place. Our politicians don’t have the balls to do what is necessary to keep us safe for fear of upsetting someone. It may be nearly fours years since we were last attacked but we are not doing everything we could to protect ourselves. The bombings in Britain show us it is just a matter of time. Maybe after the second assault America will implement all steps required for a tighter security.

Agreed, but don’t hold your breath.

A Boston Tea Party …(Don’t Hold Your Breath)

Those Brits should have followed our lead. It is perfectly evident after the four bus and subway bombings British security has not done what we in America have. I mean we have not been attacked since 9/11. Evidently the British should be replicating the security measure we have here in the United States.

Great Britain should have closed its border securely like we have done here. No one can penetrate our vast borders without the worry of being caught. Our government has done such a great job of tightening our borders from terrorists and illegals. All of America sleeps better at night knowing we have done all that is humanly possible from a terrorist entering this country over land.

What is that you say? We have not closed our borders. I don’t believe it, I am quite certain our politicians would place the security of its citizenry ahead of a few illegal’s votes. Remember we have not been attacked in nearly four years.

Another thing Britain must not have done as well as we have here in the states is placing a priority on terrorism. Our President talks about terrorism all the time. I am quite certain each time he meets or talks with representatives of other countries that terrorism is the main subject of conversation. Until the threat is eliminated terrorism will always be America’s focus.

What? Your telling me at the G-8 summit last week terrorism was not even on the agenda. The leaders of the most important countries in the world didn’t even feel it necessary to discuss terrorism. I don’t believe it; I mean we have not been attacked in four years on our own soil.

Ok, ok so what if the previous security measures are not being taken care of. It is painfully obvious the Brits must not have had the proper priorities on the way they implemented their security measures. I bet they spend just as much money on the smaller populated areas as they do on larger cities like London. In America we would not spend our security dollars so evenly. We would base our security funding on the degree of the threat.

No way ……I don’t believe you. You are certain the American congress is spending the same amount of money on the state of North Dakota as it is the state of New York. No way. Our congressmen would not treat security dollars the same way they do pork spending. How else do you explain us not being attacked since 9/11?

From what you are telling me we are treating homeland security not much differently than we do child molesters. The crisis aversion does not begin until the attack takes place. Our politicians don’t have the balls to do what is necessary to keep us safe for fear of upsetting someone. It may be nearly fours years since we were last attacked but we are not doing everything we could to protect ourselves. The bombings in Britain show us it is just a matter of time. Maybe after the second assault America will implement all steps required for a tighter security.

Agreed, but don’t hold your breath.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

A Boston Tea Party …(War Of The Worlds)

Finally, Finally, we are going to find out why the left has been so pissed-off these past 5 years. In the next couple weeks it will become abundantly clear to everyone. The naming of a Supreme Court Justice nominee by President Bush will prove to the entire nation what Democrats have been so worried about.

Since Sandra Day O’Connor announced her resignation last week the left has mobilized its spin machine. Teddy Kennedy and Charles Shummer were all over the TV during the weekend. The left is trying to label all potential Bush nominees as being out of the mainstream. They want him to consult with them before a nominee is sent to the Senate for confirmation. Of course what all these scare tactics really mean is that the left will not accept any nominee who could overturn the abortion laws. Abortion is the mother of all liberal causes, the foundation of the Democratic Party of today.

In order to overturn Roe v Wade, Bush must nominate a judge who is now and always will be a constitutionalist. It was interesting how last week when the Supreme Court ruled against private property rights how vocal many on the left were. For once the left complained of activist judges creating laws that did not follow the meaning of the constitution. The right has of course been pointing this out for years but as normal the left’s recognition of such a problem is selective. Their logic on one hand feels the court might be activist when ruling on property rights but is not when it bases rulings on laws of a foreign country. The only thing consistent about a liberal is inconsistency.

The war of the worlds, one constitutional one activist, will take place in the next couple months. President Bush may have the chance to nominate three Supreme Court justices. It is my hope all three are strict constitutionalists. It is he who won the election and it is he who needs to nominate potential justices that make his constituents satisfied. A major reason he won the last election was for the opportunity to bring the court system back into the framework set forth by our forefathers. The next few months will be Bush’s true legacy. Hopefully, a legacy the left will never overcome no matter how big the temper tantrum.