Double Standard?

The 10^th circuit ruled that the State of Colorado could not (in a nutshell) set itself up in the business of defining what is or is not too religious, and as such, struck down a State law that prohibited financial aid to students applying to certain religious colleges.

…a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Colorado may not distinguish between sectarian and “pervasively sectarian” colleges to deny state funds to students in the latter category. Such distinctions, the court ruled, amount to illegal state preferences for some religious groups over others.

It’s an interesting decision. The article is here, and the circuit court’s decision is here.

But what really caught my attention was this closing statement by Barry Lynn. This from the article linked above.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in an interview Wednesday night, agreed that the decision was significant, but criticized it as part of “an erosion” of the rights of Americans not to support religious education and belief with which they disagree.

“This will support universities set up precisely to promote the faith, and now they will be promoting it with tax dollars of people who disagree with their view,” Lynn said.

Really?

So if it is a problem when a student in need of financial aid, wants to use that aid to attend a religious university, why can’t we apply the same metric to other forms of government funding?  I happen to be against corporate welfare, in fact I’m against government welfare almost entirely.  I’m not a big fan of giving cash to people in a farm bill who don’t farm.  Wow, I could do this for days.  Why isn’t that prohibited based on “my views?” Particularlywhen things like farm bills, and Federal welfare are not even protected by the constitution?

But the point I really wanted to make—mostly because it will inflame the left wing masses—is that millions of government tax dollars are spent funding the already profitable Planned Parenthood.  Isn’t this promoting abortion with the tax dollars of people who disagree with that view? 

Based on Barry’s metric I believe it is.  No outrage from the left?  Not surprised.

Local Newss?

This form the UK on New Hampshire.

I have not honestly looked arond yet to see what local coverage there is on this, I may be way behind as usual, but the fact that his is news in the UK is interesting enough.

The Dr. Kevorkian energy initiative

The fact is that the current Democrat energy strategy could destroy America before it makes the Left’s blessed sacrament of “renewable energy” a remotely viable alternative. Do you really want to take that chance? Risking our economic freedom to the whims of foreign nations because we like the idea of not needing oil is suicide. This is a Dr. Kevorkian remedy to our economic ills, and the democrats are fully prepared to help us commit suicide to free us from “the sickness” of fossil fuels.

  

We know that Democrats in congress want renewable’s more than almost anything else. We have proof that they want energy to get more expensive so that their beloved renewable’s will finally become competitive with fossil fuels, both politically and economically. But Democrat’s are ignoring a real very problem; as nice as renewable’s would be, they cannot begin to replace fossil fuels for decades (maybe longer).

 

Money to fund such innovation is still bleeding out of our economy as demand for existing oil continues to outpace supply. But instead of bringing some of that money back home, their favored method of “balancing the field for renewable’s” is forcing massive government mandates that will eventually cost the private sector and taxpayers trillions to retool the entire country. And even then they have to accept that you can’t replace everything that relies on oil with renewable’s. But instead of acknowledging these limitations, or that this strategy could cripple the economy, and crush the middle class, they insist that it will save the middle class? Huh?