Archive for October, 2006

h1

Phyllis Kahn or DREAM KILLER

October 26, 2006

phyllis.jpg This lady phyllis kahn is trying to do a backdoor attempt to deny the private parachioal High School DeLasalle that has been on Nicollet Island For over a hundred years educating the students that went to the school.

The 1983 Nicollet Island Agreement set aside 1.7 acres of land so that DeLasalle that was adjacent to school covering a non historic street called oak grove. At that time School didn’t have the money to build the football field, rather they focused on the schools primary goal of educating kids. During that time the school almost closed but a plan was devised and it saved the school to the point where it now receives over 300 application for the 9th grade class every year with only 200 applicants are accepted both paying and tuition assisted students.

Now that the high school can focus on building a field that will be shared with the minneapolis park board, with the high school taking care of the maintence and upkeep of the field.

phyllis.jpg Phyllis Kahn has come to see that the lease that she has with the park board as her house and land as hers. She has lied and connived to make sure that the school doesn’t get the field. Why is it that only a small cadre were the only ones to know about the lottery to buy the houses for a dollar. Was the lottery publicized for everyone in the twin cities to buy a chance.

The following are 99 year lease holders of houses on the island for 23 years or less, where as the School has been there for over 100 years. They view the island as their private retreat and want DeLasalle to move so that their idyl life wont be interupted by children

  • phyllis kahn
  • Barry Clegg
  • jeffery strand
  • Janet Demming
  • John Chaffee
  • Victor Grambsch
  • Patrick Scully
  • Christine Viken

phyllis.jpg ms kahn says she is for the children unless it intrudes on her own island, I would call that two faced and to have her be removed from office.

The lease holders should have no say until they have been on the island as long as DeLasalle High School has been.

h1

Al Gore’s Misrepresentation

October 25, 2006

Al Gore, left out convenient truths about the earths climate in his so called movie. Al Gore is acting more like a wayward angry child who is throwing a temper tantrum, not getting his way.

In the 1930s and 1950s, the central United States experience two periods of extreme drought. The 1980s and 1990s had ten of the warmest years this century and possibly since the Little Climatic Optimum. Proxy and instrumental data indicate that 1998 was the warmest year globally in 1200 years of Earth history. In the following year, a La Nina developed and global temperatures dropped slightly.

In the 1974 time magazine, printed on their cover that the earth was starting the begining of global cooling era, newsweek did the same in 1975 the following year.

This link is part of the argument

In the 1980s, we were surprised by the first long ice cores from both Greenland and the Antarctic, which gave us 400,000 years of the Earth’s detailed temperature history in their ice layers. We had expected to find the big Ice Ages and the warm interglacial periods like our own. We had not expected to find a moderate, natural 1500-year cycle running through it all, even through the big Ice Ages.

The natural warmings raise Earth’s temperatures 1 to 2 degrees C at the latitude of New York for 400-800 years. The coolings that follow drop our temperatures 1-2 degrees below the mean for a similar length of time.

Since then, scientists have found the 1500-year cycle in tree rings, cave stalagmites and the microfossils of seabed sediments. Prehistoric villages moved up and down the Alps and Andes mountainsides while glaciers worldwide advanced and retreated, all in time with the cycle.

Here is the question will people like Al Gore walk the talk or will he speak out both sides of his mouth?

Will Al Gore give up his vehicles, and his many houses, will set the example for others to follow or is he another two faced environmentalist.

I challenge Mr. Gore to walk the talk !!

h1

LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

October 25, 2006

 

 

388 U.S. 1

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 395.
Argued April 10, 1967.
Decided June 12, 1967.

Virginia’s statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.(findlaw)

This case is being widely abused and misconstrued for an argument that does not fit within the parameters of the Loving decision which was about a man and a woman in a inter-racial marriage. Yes the Court does say that marriage is a civil right for the basis of procreation.

No where within the decision does it cover same sex marriage.

here is section 1 of the 14th amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(findlaw)

The voters’s within each state has granted small certain privileges to couple who marry to procreate this was decided by the legislative bodies in each state that was duly elected.

Certain groups that are now active in trying to have laws overturned by the courts instead of going through the legislative process to have laws amended.

The questions that I have, Is social engineering by fiat of the State Courts the right way to go instead of going the slow route of educating the voters in each state?

Here is a surprising fact that is nobody is stating and I am quite sure it would eliminate most arguments, and that is between the mid 1940’s and the 1950’s were any benefits given to married couples by the States or the Federal Govt. (so from 17763 to around 1950 there were no benefits given to married couples other than wills, ownership of property handed down thru wills.)

  • 1. Redefine who is a legal heir in each state, so that it would eliminate any court challenges.
  • 2. Power of attorney to be named by the person before they are incapacitated or hospitalized (listing who may visit them while hospitalized short term or longterm), make it legally binding to with stand family disagreements.
  • 3. The IRS recognize persons that are single, married, cohabiting couples (heterosexual, or same sex couples) for taxation purposes..
  • 4. Apply the rule of benefits evenly by Social Security Administration to singles, married, or cohabiting couples(heterosexual or same sex couples).
  • 5. Pensions: The holder designate’s the heir unless married or it can be established that the couple (heterosexual or same sex couples) have been together seven years, or more and a single person would as well pass on their pension to the heir of their choice.

By doing the above it will increase the tax base for both the States and Federal Govt’s.

It also eliminates the marriage debate.

Information was found at Findlaw.com

h1

Whom should get my vote and why?

October 24, 2006

The following are the candidates that are running for election to become the next senator, or other offices that are up for election or re-election why should I vote for any of them, because they haven’t given me a reason why I should.

  • Robert Fitzgerald – I
  • Mark Kennedy – R
  • Amy Klobuchar – D
  • Michael James Cavlan – G
  • Ben Powers – CON

The next two are running for the house, one candidate has been nothing short of a harpy while in office not even trying to be optimistic about our military or the good economy that the u.s. is having. her opponent hasn’t offered anything as to why I should vote for him.

  • Obi Sium – R
  • Betty Mccollum – D – incumbent

The following persons are running for govenor:

  • Peter Hutchinson – I
  • AND MAUREEN REED
  • Tim Pawlenty – R – Incumbent
  • AND CAROL MOLNAU
  • Mike Hatch – D
  • AND JUDI DUTCHER
  • Ken Pentel – G
  • AND DANENE PROVENCHER
  • Leslie Davis – AI
  • AND GREGORY K. SODERBERG
  • Walt E. Brown – I
  • WESLEY C. Nelson

None of the candidates have even bothered me to inform me as to where they stand, and what their platforms are or what they hope to accomplish if elected.

The following are running for Secretary of state, just what does this office do in the first place, couldnt this job be cut to a part time position?

  • Joel Spoonheim – I
  • Mary Kiffmeyer – R – Incumbent
  • Mark Ritchie – D
  • Bruce Kennedy – I

The following is for the office of State Auditor, this office should be auditing all agencies as to whether they should be kept or eliminated.

  • Lucy Gerold – I
  • Patricia Anderson – R – Incumbent
  • Rebecca Otto – D
  • Dave Berger – G

The following are running for State Attorney General

  • John James – I
  • Jeff Johnson – R
  • Lori Swanson – D
  • Papa John Kolstad – G

This has been abused by the current attorney general by deciding which companies will succeed in the State of Minnesota.

This office has been abused by the current office holder, and she isnt stopping at race baiting to keep her job.

  • Richard ‘Rick’ Mulkern – R
  • Mee Moua – D – Incumbent

The Following office needs a new person, this person has has been detrimental to the district that he represent by not doing his job for his constituents.

  • Greg Le May – R
  • Sheldon Johnson – D – Incumbent

The above candidates have given reason as to why their opponents should not be elected but none for why they should be elected.

h1

Is it Discrimination or Prejudice

October 17, 2006

freddy_fender.jpg

This Quote by Freddy Fender: “Whenever I run into prejudice, I smile and feel sorry for them, and I say to myself, `There’s one more argument for birth control.” He told the Washington Post in 1977.

Freddy Fender had the right attitude when it comes to people who are prejudiced. Let them live so that they will be a constant reminder to everyone of people, who live in the past. To judge a person on looks and not on the person’s character. Shows their ignorance to everyone by basing a person’s color or race, and not on the person’s character.

Everybody should be judged on their content of their character.
My personal views are based on Mr. Freddy Fender’s belief but I have taken it one step further. To me everybody is green and Kermit is our leader(if Kermit can have a g/f like Miss Piggy) because Kermit, would judge on a persons character and how they contribute overall.

please post what your views are!

Here is a link so that you can preview his music.

h1

The ALCU

October 16, 2006

aclupitt_sm.JPGIs the ACLU a legitimate organization or one that borders on trying overthrow a duly elected government by assisting in the illegal immigration over legal immigration into the U.S..

The ACLU knowingly helps terrorists and criminals getting into the U.S. by illegal means(along the U.S./Mexico Border) for the purpose of killing innocent U.S citizens.

I am quite surprised about the ACLU, I always held the organization in high regards for defending civil liberties.

The following Organization is just a group of American citizens who feel that our laws should be enforced and not paid lip-service, The minuteman project.picture1.jpg

I believe in legal immigration from all countries, but I do not support illegal immigration.

When trying to have an open dialogue regarding illegal immigration the opposition resorts to tactics that are reminiscent of Hitler’s storm shock troop’s if you had any views that are not the same as theirs. They will use hate, yell, shout and physically attack you for having views that are not in line with them.

Legal immigration is when the laws are followed when immigrating to that country.

The first step is to get a visas from your country to enter our country and then apply for a work visas.

To enter another country illegally, should not allow you all the same rights as legal immigrants and natural Americans, a recent study showed that legal immigrants were strongly opposed to illegal immigration because it affect them as well.

Should ACLU that actively support(aiding & abetting) illegal immigration be punished to the fullest extent of the law, for not obeying the laws in the first place?

h1

Truth and Misinformation

October 14, 2006

Millard Fillmore was the Whig president(liberalist) 1850.

The 1850 compromise came about to appease the hard core democrats who believed in slavery! Senator Stephen A. Douglas’s (Democrat) effective strategy in Congress combined with Fillmore’s pressure from the White House to give impetus to the Compromise movement. Breaking up Clay’s single legislative package, Douglas presented five separate bills to the Senate:

1. Admit California as a free state.
2. Settle the Texas boundary and compensate her.
3. Grant territorial status to New Mexico.
4. Place Federal officers at the disposal of slaveholders seeking fugitives.

The following is the truth about the discrimination that Democrats practiced real life, ” On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt (hard core racist) issued Executive Order 9066. This gave General DeWitt authority

Starting on March 2, 1942, General DeWitt issued orders requiring all persons of Japanese ancestry in eight Western states to report to temporary assembly centers. When they reported, the government transported them to permanent “relocation centers,” the guarded prison camps where they would remain for up to four years.

When ordered to evacuate, Issei and Nisei families usually had only a few days to sell their homes, businesses, vehicles, and other property. Even so, almost all cooperated with General DeWitt’s orders, believing that by doing so they proved their loyalty.

Although more than 60 percent of those ordered to evacuate were U.S. citizens, none had a hearing or trial before the government locked them up in relocation camps. Once in the camps, however, the government asked them to sign a loyalty oath to the United States. Most did, but about 4 percent refused, protesting how they had been treated. The government classified these individuals as “disloyal.” Use this link to where you can read the whole article.
Congress never once questioned Roosvelts tatics once
Should the same rights that we have as american citizens be given to people who seek to kill us and destroy our way of life?

leave your comments and they will be posted because I am a firm believer in free speech, just not the same rights to those that are not U.S. citizen or here Illegally.

The following act was passed and signed into law pales in comparison to how President Roosevelt acted during WWII.

Military Commissions Act of 2006, authorizes the president to use military tribunals to try enemy combatants(terrorists) that represent no nation or uniform, and to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, where as President Roosevelt ignored them totally.