Ken's Comments

The very beginning of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." For decades this was interpreted as saying Government, public places, schools, etc. must be free of all religion.  No symbols, no books, no prayers, etc.  It was also interpreted by many as saying Government may not grant funds to religious institutions.  No funding of religious schools as part of school choice type programs, for example.  Some took it further to argue Government funds to help the poor can't go to religious organizations either. Those opinions are wrong. I recognize Congress cannot declare the United States is a Catholic country as Hungary had done in the distant past or recognize a national Church as the England did.  However, prohibiting religious artifacts or funding to religious institutions is not, in my opinion the correct interpretation of the First Amendment. Two reasons for my p...

Senator McConnell says a Supreme Court nominee by President Obama won't be considered in the Senate.  Republican Presidential Candidates sing out in agreement.  Democrats and liberals whine loudly about this.  In response to that whining, a friend of mine sent me this link: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146 In July 2007 - more than 18 months before President George W. Bush was to leave office, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called on his colleagues in the newly elected Democrat Majority to refuse to approve any Supreme Court nominees offered by President Bush.  Note the timing - not an election year, 18 months before the President was to leave office. Note the hypocrisy. Now, let me put a different twist on this, since I claim to be a thoughtful, reasonable Conservative. 1. How many Republicans were in the Senate in 2007 when Sen. Schumer said this? 2. How many of those Senators disagreed with...