No Christ in Red Cross

UK Red Cross Bans Christmas in Shops
Friday, December 17, 2010 08:26 AM

Christmas has been banned by the Red Cross from its 430 fund-raising shops in the United Kingdom, according to a MailOnline report. After staff members were directed to remove any other signs of the Christian holiday, there followed criticism from both Christians and Moslems.Christine Banks, a volunteer at a Red Cross shop in Kent, said: 'We put up a nativity scene in the window and were told to take it out. It seems we can't have anything that means Christmas. We're allowed to have some tinsel but that's it. When we send cards they have to say season's greetings or best wishes. They must not be linked directly to Christmas.'

When we asked we were told it is because we must not upset Moslems.'Banks added: ' We have been instructed that we can't say anything about Christmas and we certainly can't have a Christmas tree."

My Question: Will the Red Cross soon have to change their name so as not to upset the Moslems?

Taxpayer outcry success

Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2010, concerning the demise of the omnibus spending bill:

Anti-spending Republicans credited the tea party and the rising power of the conservative grass roots. "This bill never would have been defeated if not for the outcry from taxpayers across America," Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) said.

Power to the people, right on!

This is brilliant!

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at airports. All we need to do is develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth.

This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be none of this stuff about racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive trials. This is so simple that it's brilliant. I can see it now: you're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system, "Attention, standby passengers! We now have a seat available on flight number...." The booth will have a self-clean feature.

T.J. is smiling!

In its next session beginning in January, the legislature of Virginia will consider proposing a constitutional "Repeal Amendment." The Repeal Amendment would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Its text is simple: "Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

The Repeal Amendment should not be confused with the power to "nullify" unconstitutional laws possessed by federal courts. Unlike nullification, a repeal power allows two-thirds of the states to reject a federal law for policy reasons that are irrelevant to constitutional concerns. In this sense, a state repeal power is more like the president's veto power.

This amendment reflects confidence in the collective wisdom of the men and women from diverse backgrounds, and elected by diverse constituencies, who comprise the modern legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Put another way, it allows thousands of democratically elected representatives outside the Beltway to check the will of 535 elected representatives in Washington, D.C. (full article at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12144).

A moment of Algore honesty

On November 23, while speaking in Greece, Al Gore admitted: "First-generation ethanol, I think, was a mistake." And whose mistake was it, Mr. Gore? In 1994, it was Gore himself who ended a 50-50 tie in the Senate by voting in favor of an ethanol tax credit that added almost $5 billion to the federal deficit last year. And that number doesn't include the many ways in which corn-based ethanol mandates drive up the price of food and livestock feed. Whether Gore meant well or not can be debated, but according to Reuters, Gore also said, "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president." Why should we believe anything this man has to say? He is a joke.