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...

I find myself in the unpleasant position of having to agree with a Federal Court Judge who overturned a Federal law that makes genital mutilation of females unconstitutional.  Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a horrific practice employed by some members of the Muslim faith.  Congress passed a law making this a crime and a Judge in Detroit ruled that law unconstitutional and, based on a very limited review of the case, I agree with his reasoning.  This may be a good decision made in a bad situation. The situation was that a doctor in Michigan was arrested and charged with violating a Federal law that prohibits performing genital mutilation on young girls.  For the record, the attorney for the doctor is quoted as saying the physician did not do this.  But the issue at hand is whether the Federal law is Constitutional.  Here is the test for Conservatives - just because something is horrible does that give the Federal Government the right to regulate it? ...

Thought #1 - In my opinion the most effective form of gun control is a gun in the possession of someone who respects the weapon and knows how to use it, and who also respects life and living things. Here in Montana, I like to say there are 5 guns for every person in the State.  I have no basis for that statement but guns are popular and easily obtained.  You would think, after hearing President Obama's speech this would be a recipe for routine massacres, yet that doesn't happen out here. Why is that?  Probably because people who own guns are raised from an early age to respect guns as a tool not a toy and educated on the proper use.  They also respect life and other people. The result is that in the 18 months I have lived here I can recall 2 instances of death by gun. Thought #2 - Unlike the "Right to Privacy" or the "Right to an abortion" or other rights people claim to have (and do for the most part), the "Right to Bear Arms" is explicitl...

First it was the federal take over of private industries, now it will be the federal takeover of our schools. President Bush started it - working with Congress to have Federal intervention into banks, financial institutions, AIG, and auto manufacturers. President Obama has taken those programs to a new level and wants to usurp state authority over health insurance. Now President Obama is targeting our schools. Has no one read the United States Constitution? Isn't there some point at which President Obama feels the Federal Government does not have authority over us? President Bush and Congress adopted laws and regulations, and provided funding, to begin a massive federal intervention into a variety of private industries - banks and financial institutions, automakers, and AIG - to name a few. Some banks were told they could not refuse to accept TARP funds. Other organizations were told they'd get no help, like Lehman, and they went bankrupt, leaving Goldman Sachs, who had ...