These doctors in California who have suddenly gotten ethics and won’t assisit with the Death Penalty may be the best example of hypocrisy ever.

Here we have Legislatures demanding that Doctors prescribe the morning after abortion pills, against their will.

That Walmart must sell the Morning After abortion pill against their will.

The Supreme Court says that Doctors in Oregon can euthanize people. (That means assisting them to die)

Abortion are considered a medical procedure worthy of public financing.

Partial birth abortion is still acceptable round most parts.

But these doctors in Cali won’t help rid the world of a convictedx murderer and rapist because of their ethics.

If they can stand up to a court order and refuse this, can other doctors refuse court orders and laws and protect other forms of life? Can doctors and pharmicists refuse to abort the unborn now? Will the ethics of every doctor be tollerated now?

Or is this more grandstanding on behalf of the guilty over the rule of law?

Check out the absolute hypocrisy of this one. Judge refuses to allow refugee’s deportation (Refugee now means illegal alien too)

An immigration judge has rebuffed an attempt by federal immigration authorities in Minnesota to deport Rene Hurtado, a former member of the El Salvador treasury police, who was embraced by the Twin Cities antiwar movement after he denounced alleged U.S. complicity in the torture of El Salvadoran citizens in the 1980s.

Doesn’t sound that bad does it? Nope, the paper, as usual, spun it up to make the guy look good.

Judge Robert D. Vinikoor ruled that local immigration officials had not proved their case that Hurtado, who lives in Minneapolis, was involved in torture. The judge said Hurtado had been a model resident since coming to the United States illegally in 1981. The decision could still be appealed.

I’m sorry, but the media and the leftists just say that the US military tortures people, and that is taken as fact, why not this guy? Plus HE CAME HERE ILLEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vinikoor noted that Hurtado is married to a U.S. citizen and has two children who were born in the United States and has received a college degree, maintained steady employment and been active in his community and church.

Does that mean everyone who goes to Church and is married with kids can get forgiveness for breaking the law?

Vinikoor also argued that it was “fundamentally unfair” for immigration authorities to offer a transcript of an interview that Hurtado gave to Amnesty International in 1983. Hurtado did not see the transcript until the day of the court hearing on the case in Bloomington last June. Vinikoor said the transcript had many irregularities and was too unreliable to be included as evidence.

Why is that unfair? Is it not equally unfair for our troops to be tried in the court of public opinion? (For the second time I might add!)

The judge said that he also found that Hurtado’s testimony “although somewhat equivocal, does not establish that he tortured or persecuted innocent civilians in El Salvador.”

Definition of equivocal:

1. (Literally, called equally one thing or the other; hence:) Having two significations equally applicable; capable of double interpretation; of doubtful meaning; ambiguous; uncertain; as, equivocal words; an equivocal sentence.
2. Capable of being ascribed to different motives, or of signifying opposite feelings, purposes, or characters; deserving to be suspected; as, his actions are equivocal. “Equivocal repentances.” –Milton.
3. Uncertain, as an indication or sign; doubtful. “How equivocal a test.” –Burke.

Hurtado became a cause celebre in the local antiwar community in the early 1980s after moving into St. Luke Presbyterian Church in Wayzata, which had joined what was known as the sanctury movement, protecting illegal aliens from deportation.

Bingo, the guy is an anti-war activist. That is why he is being allowed to stay here, even though he came here illegally.

He gave at least 25 news interviews, among them an interview with the Star Tribune, and in some interviews was quoted as saying that he was involved in torture. He has said in court that while he belonged to a military unit that engaged in torture and murder, the interviews were inaccurate. He said his English was poor and his statements were either misinterpreted, misquoted or mistranslated, and that he only observed other treasury police torturing or killing people.

Innocent bystander? Oh, it wasn’t his fault, he was misquoted. And the lefties are embracing him as a hero.

Hurtado’s remarks got considerable publicity in the 1980s because he alleged the U.S. military contributed to the abuses during his country’s civil war by training the treasury police in torture techniques. He appeared at rallies organized by local protesters who were opposed to U.S. military intervention in El Salvador.

There you go. Accuse the US of wrong doing, and you will be a hero, no saint to the antiwar/American left. (See Cindy Sheehan)

How do you spell judicial activist? I spell it Vinikoor.

Dear Bush & DC Politicos,

In the SOTU you said you wanted to wean us off foreign oil. Did you mean to say oil in general? It sure seems like you did, since you keep pushing alternative fuels. Here you are pushing all kinds of science experiments to the forfront decades before they are ready for public consumption.

If you and the others in DC do truly want us off the foreign oil, there is a very simple way to accomplish that. Allow oil exploration and drilling in the US. Yes, the real answer to how to get off the foreign stuff is simple. Go Domestic.

The legislators in DC are the ones who have been excaping the blame they deserve. It is Congress who has gone out of their waqy to ensure people have no other option but to get the oil fromn foreign sources.

If getting us off foreign oil is the objective, reduce regulations and go Domestic. If it is to bump up your “green” cred, rot in a corn silo!

I’ve been pretty quiet about the the unrest and violence that the Muslim world is wrought with over a couple of silly cartoons. My honest opinion is that this is a case in point where you get the chance to see that there is no way to negotiate with a mob-mentality ruled society. A few powerful people at the top of the religous food chain are playing the on false fears of the crowd, and turning a people (regular Muslims) into a frenzied violent fundamentalist mob. I do not think all Muslims are vioolent, but most (almost all) of them I see depicted in the protests are displaying acts of violence, or at least anger/rage.

(I acknowledge the peaceful protest in MN this weekend, but again, they saw it fit that they march in protest of another’s free speech. So their refraining from violence, as welcome as it is, does little to show the tollerance of the Muslim people to freedom of speech of other non-Muslims.)

I just got an editorial/story emailed to me from a friend living in Sweden. It is written by the man who started it all, by running a couple of cartoons. Why I Published Those Cartoons

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn’t mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

But the cartoon story is different.

Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn’t to provoke gratuitously — and we certainly didn’t intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.

Read the whole thing

“Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.”

And let’s point out why he did run the cartoons.

1. At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.
2. Last September, a Danish children’s writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.
3. Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an
   installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings.
4. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)
5. Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh
   Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.

That was what led up to the cartoons being run. Tired of his fellow Europeans caving to the bully tactics and political correctness, he sought to point out the hypocrisy from Muslims demanding tolerance and acceptance, but not sharing them in return.

This whole thing just goes to prove what some of us have been saying for quite some time. How do you negotiate peacefully with people who use violence and terror as a political tool? These protests are not so much in revenge over the cartoons, but rather a sign of things to come if anyone ever dares to draw a picture of Mohammed again.

People everywhere are afraid to put restrictions on Muslims in societies. Like Europe and other nations, the Muslims are moving in at alarming rates. I use the word alarming, because they are not assimilating into their new societies. In fact, the societies are assimilating into the Muslim society. Some countries, rather than deal directly with the threat of a fundamentalist Islamic majority, pass laws banning all immigration into the country for spouses. This did nothing, since the Muslims didn’t abide by the rules, and just claim to be sisters and brothers. They don’t follow the rules when the rules get in the way of their religion.

Their goal is not like what most of us seek in life. Most of us are intent on being happy and having family/loved ones. Muslims are instructed in their holy book to convert (or in some depictions of it, kill) all non-believers. Just how we gonna deal with that? Will the laws of Islam be demanded for all of society? (Already been tried in some places) Remember the Taliban? No music, women were to be forcibly raped if outside alone with out male escort. Do you really want to have a society that is millennia behind our own, sitting at the negotiating table?

I’m sick of the world catering to the Imans and clerics around the world for fear of retribution. When will there be a good faith effort by Islam and Muslims as a whole to be a peaceful member of society? Will they ever be willing to resolve conflict with out violence and mayhem? More importantly, are we going to continue to give them more tolerance to behave however they want. I don’t want to convert to Islam. I don’t want to have to study the Koran. Why should I/we have to live by their rules?

Call me intolerant if you want, but I only want to be tolerant with people who will be tolerant in return. If cartoons can spark this rash of violence and destruction, what will happen when the intolerant Muslim leaders realize that the world does not intend to convert? Will they start the next world war and clash of civilizations?

Democrat’s Retreat Plan - Round 2. The Democrats are getting back to their roots on Iraq. That is their ‘cut and run’, ‘retreat’, ‘we lost let’s go home’, or ‘Viet Nam = ad so all war is bad’ let’s protest and demoralize our troops’ roots.

WASHINGTON — After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

So, if you know the troops will be needed, why have them move hundreds or thousands of miles away? (I know, they have no clue what strategy really means. They think it is just a political word. So strategy in war situations to them, means political.)

The concept, dubbed ‘’strategic redeployment,” is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall.

Do they really think that a ’slim nine page report’ holds the key to winning the war on terror?

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb’s paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study’s concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq — Jack Reed of Rhode Island — and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

Stop the press, Feinstein a moderate? My arse!

The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.

You notice, the Democrats are more worried about the Republicans than they are the Terrorists.

But in its broad outlines, many leading Democrats say the Korb plan represents an answer to Republicans’ oft-repeated charge that Democrats aren’t offering a way forward on Iraq — and to do so in a way that is neither defeatist nor blindly loyal to the president.

Sorry, but retreating is retreating. And why is doing the right thing, even if that means siding with Bush, the wrong thing to do? Oh yeah, your fever swamp base will disown you. Cater to base, that is teh Dem’s plan for everything.

”We’re not going to cut and run — that’s just Republican propaganda,” Dean said in a speech Feb. 10 in Boston. [...]

Really, OK, then what is your plan?

”But we are going to redeploy our troops [...]

You mean move them out of Iraq? How is that … nevermind

so they don’t have targets on their backs, and they’re not breaking down doors [...]

What does he mean, “breaking down doors”? Looks like another Dean - ‘we’re the bad guys’ statement to me.

and putting themselves in the line of fire all the time. . . . [...]

What is the military for? Would it be better for civilians here in the US to do battle with the guys who want us dead?

It’s a sensible plan.

Senseless, maybe.

It’s a thoughtful plan.

I’m sure someone had to think of it.

I think Democrats can coalesce around it.”

Luckily, it includes retreating, so they can get behind the troops doing something.

Reed, an Army veteran and former paratrooper who has been charged with developing a party strategy on the war, said the plan is attractive to many Democrats because it rejects what he calls the ”false dichotomy” suggested by President Bush: that the only options in Iraq are ‘’stay the course” or ”cut and run.”

Taking all the troops out of a war zone is retreating! Hello? McFly?

There you have it America, the Democrats are just now formulating their plan for Iraq. Not for the motive of what is the best thing to do, but what is best for the Democrats.

Ask not What is Good for the Country, Ask What is Good For the Democratic Party

”It’s important to note that it’s not withdrawal — it’s redeployment,” Reed said. ”We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it’s a method to improve the security there and around the globe.”

Taking all the troops out of a war zone is retreating! Hello? McFly? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. Reasonable objectives? Does that mean, a message sold to voters that will result in Democrats getting elected? Or that Iraq has a chance at freedom from the terrorists?

Ask not What is Good for the Country, Ask What is Good For the Democratic Party

Just what happened to responsible Government? And why is Government now blaming us, the citizens for them squandering the money we gave them?

State feels bumps in the budget for roads Did anyone even bother to ask if all the extra funds being taken by Commuter and Light rail had an impact on this?

After underestimating the cost of highway building and overestimating federal funding, the Minnesota Department of Transportation this year found itself $300 million short of what it needed to complete the next three years of metro road projects.

To keep the Crosstown Hwy. 62-Interstate Hwy. 35W reconstruction on schedule to start this spring, the agency has poached $50 million intended by Congress for local road, bike, transit and walking projects in the metro area. And it has gobbled the entire $100 million increase in federal highway money to pay for cost overruns of metro area projects, leaving none for outstate roads.

hidden in the story is the usual subliminal suggestion by DFLers and leftist to raise taxes. They always raise the issue of funding shortfalls, but never give suggestions to their solution. As usual, they stand on the sideline and cast stones.

The DFL pushed for just as much spending as the GOP in the past, if not more. Both parties are guilty for the lack of funds for roads. (ahem, earmarks exist locally too!) Both parties, plus the bureaucracy known as MNDOT should be taking blame for squandering our money on fruitless pursuits at social engineering and nanny state programs (half the budget goes to education, and we have to borrow money to pay for new roads, that doesn’t make sense to me!). One of the highest priorities of MN’s government should be transportation which to 95% of us means roads and highways.

Here we have Minneapolis and St. Paul ganging up to rob another $800 million (yeah right, it’ll be a billion) dollars for a train down University and then there is the boondoggle called Commuter rail. These legislators in St. Paul and their pons at MNDOT wouldn’t know a functioning transportation system if it bit them on the arse. Why are we allowing them to tell us what we need? We know that the highways need major work.

(Don’t get me started about how the Anoka County Board has its hands out at the capital, while also having it firmly over the mouths of their residents, refusing to let us say yes or no to a stadium. Every chance they get, the people we place in power, are corrupted with what we gave them. The power is going to their heads.)

Roads and highways are the number one form of transportation. Get that through your fat skulls. Stop the fluffy feel good crap. Prioritize the most dangerous spots, and fix them. Then prioritize the most congested and fix them.

Oh and where should we get the money from? Take if all, 100% from our vehicle taxes. Take 100% of the gas tax and fix our roads. If MNDOT and the legislature as a whole would stop pushing their personal agendas, and listen to 95% of the people, this crap wouldn’t be happening. Roads, roads, roads. Build us the roads we need. When you get all of our bottlenecks and congestion dealt with,. if there is money left over, we can talk about the rest of your social engineering program. But until then, that crap should be on the back burner.

The DFL is hyperventilating over Bush raising money for Kennedy and Pawlenty. But they never have a problem when big names come ot town for them. The 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, John Kerry, will be in town Thursday.

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts will be back in Minnesota on Thursday.

Back? Wait, you mean to say that this isn’t the first time he’s been here?

Last year, Kerry traveled to Minnesota to support Chris Coleman in his winning bid to become mayor of St. Paul.

Which if you remember was because Coleman’s fellow DFL opponent had endorsed Bush in 04. Kerry was just performing a little political payback.

Does Pat Kessler, who recently claimed that the Sunday Morning talk shows have a majority of Conservative guests, think that this is just moderate political speech? (From Sun, Feb 19 Meet the Press)

MS. MAUREEN DOWD:  Well, I think that the reason this story has evoked such fascination is because the vice president is like the phantom. You know, we hear the creak of the door as he passes, but we don’t really know what he’s up to. We don’t know his schedule. We don’t always know where he is. We don’t know what democratic institution he’s blowing off at any given minute, and so this allowed us to see how his behavior and judgement operated pretty much in real time—with the delay, but pretty much in real time.

And it covered all the problems of the Bush/Cheney administration:  secrecy and stonewalling, then blowing off the rules that are at the heart of our democracy, then using a filter to try and put the truth out in a way that would most suit their political needs, and then bad political judgement in bungling a crisis. I mean, if there’s one thing the Republicans are great at since Reagan, it’s damage control. But he is such a control freak, you know, he doesn’t even care about the damage.

Tim Russert’s response: Nothing

MS. DOWD:  Mary, it isn’t only the press. He blows off the FISA courts, he blows off the Geneva Conventions, he blows off the U.N. to go to Iraq. He wants to blow off everything. He’s got a fever of about presidential erosion just the way he had a fever about going into Iraq.

Tim Russert: Again, nothing

MS. DOWD:  But then he shot his friend and blames his friend.

Tim’s got an answer this time.

MR. RUSSERT:  Can I just pick up on that?  The Democrats were very, very outspoken, as you might expect. The front-runner for the Democratic nomination 2008, the senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, had a news conference, and this is what she offered.

(Videotape, February 14, 2006)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D-NY):  A tendency of this administration from the top all the way to the bottom is to withhold information, to resist legitimate requests for information, to refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevant to the job that all of you do and the interest of the American people. The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  How do you respond?

Good job Tim. 

MS. DOWD:  But I think reporters would have had a lot of empathy for the vice president if he hadn’t sent people out for four days to blame the victim. I mean, you know, I went hunting with Reagan and Bush Sr. and I’ve been on all these Republican hunting trips, and—but I’ve learned a lot about hunting this week. And the thing I’ve learned is that the shooter bears total responsibility for where everyone in the party is before he shoots, and they shoot abreast, not while someone’s fetching a duck. So for him to send all these people out to blame this guy for so many days was not appropriate.

Get the point yet? The Democratic talking point for the coming week is: Cheney and the Republicans are blaming the victim.

MS. DOWD:  Well, I do think, you know, I appreciate the vice president’s attempts to put on a sweet pink tie and, you know, to tell Wyoming about, you know, his lust as a newlywed. But I think Mary had a very difficult job humanizing Dick Cheney, because I don’t think he has given us much chance to see him as a human being.

This is what passes for a serious political analyst on NBC. Dowd has some kind of infatuation with Cheney. Her focus is entirely on Cheney, and she never bats an eye about talking this way about him. But what is worse than her being perceived to the public as a credible and objective political commentator, is the way the press types like Russert just let her spout off.

Dowd is just one of the many on the left who have pinned their career to demonizing Bush/Cheney. To people like me, I see right through her hatred and partisan words. She throws up these attacks, and statements with out proof, evidence, or facts. What is sad is that her blind hatred for Cheney is being missed by the MSM. Russert and the likes continue to have her on. They continue to allow her to spread lies and defamous lies about the Vice President of the Unites States.

This is media bias. There is no better example of it than situations like this. When the press continues to allow someone who has lost her ability to put her hatred aside and act, at least in standard partisan form, one has to question the motives of the media’s motives. Why would they have on a guest who you know exactly what she’ll say?

Maybe because you can’t say it yourself.

Rob Hubbard, who claims he was the one and only one behind the decision not to run the ads was on AM1500 with Ron and Mark today. I was unable to catch the entire interview, but I did catch this one very important, and telling, part.

Hubbard was saying that the decision stemmed from how KSTP didn’t agree that the statements about the media in the ad. That was why they didn’t run the ad, and for that reason alone. They’d be happy to run the second ad, unedited, he said. But they were not offered the chance to by Progress for America. (I have to ask, can you blame them?)

Then he went on to describe to a caller the process of deciding what goes into the news coverage of KSTP. He said that usually the news considered as ‘bad’ is in fact what does get run. Due to its “terminal” nature, it gets priority over other good news. He made a pretty good case for why it is that the media focuses so intently on the “bad” news over the that of the “good”.

Then why the heck is he (and the media) so up in arms when this ad points out that very fact? Of course the people close to the media are going to be apologetic for the media as a whole, but I’d have loved to have seen Ron or Mark have quoted Hubbard to himself on this one like they have in the past to people.

So let’s get it straight.

1. KSTP didn’t run the ad because of the critical statement that the media is one sided when it comes news from Iraq being bad.
2. KSTP then explains that it (KSTP) does run more bad news than good since it is deemed more important and newsworthy. Due to the urgency of whatever the negative stories are, they often get run over good news.

So it seems like what this is really about is the media was criticized, and that just cannot be tolerated by the media. They make a living criticizing people, whether they be elected/public officials, criminals, or corporate cheats. They never leave a stone unturned when they investigate sexy and juicy stories, but god forbid they don’t lead every newscast with the casualty report from the war, or how many car bombs happened today. How much longer are the 3 year old photos from abu Garib going to rule the air waves?

KSTP could have taken a different tactic then requesting the Veterans change their message. If they truly believed that the ad was misleading, in regards to their own news coverage of the war, there were alternative actions.

• They could have run a disclaimer before the ads saying that the content in this ad does not reflect the views of Channel 5 or Management, just like they do on Saturday afternoons and late at night before those Diet pill commercials. But they didn’t
• They could have done a special report on their very own coverage of the war. If they think the ad mischaracterizes KSTP’s coverage, they could have done a retrospective from the invasion to current day. Along with the percentage of good news accounts to bad. But they didn’t.

I’m sorry to say, that as much as I have admired the Hubbard family’s locally owned and operated news empire, they are dead wrong on this one. They chose to take a stand along side their fellow media members on principle, but did so by snubbing our Veterans just because they happened to dare to speak out against the media. And that my friends is what you cannot do in this world as far as the media is concerned.

You can call the President a liar, accuse the Vice President of being drunk, Republicans crooks, the troops as torturers, rich people as all greedy Republicans, Republicans as Nazis or fascist, and all white people racist etc etc any time you want. That is tolerated speech as far as the media is concerned. But don’t you dare speak negatively of the media.

Dear KSTP,

I am appalled at your station’s decision to refuse the ads from Midwest Heroes & Progress for America. But I am even more appalled as to why.

From Your own letter to Progress for America - ( The reason that KSTP-TV management decided not to air the recent :60 commercial for Progress for America were the lines, “that the media only reports the bad news”, and “you would never know it from the news reports but the enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda.” )

Then your station has the gall to suggest the group edit their ads to fit your particular agenda or you won’t air them. That is censorship. This group shouldn’t have to cater its message to your selective requests like yours. Quite frankly I expected so much more from KSTP, which, as a news provider, is supposed to simply provide Minnesotans with information, not prejudge and censor what we hear.

This leads to a few questions about your station’s credibility when it comes to the free flow of information.

• How often do you turn down advertisers?
• And for what reasons?

• I’d like to see some examples of ads you refused to air in the past.

• Do you have a list of criteria for ads, or is this a case of someone’s personal objection to the ad?

• How often do you decide what is news and what is not?
• Is it common place at your station to refuse ad time to people critical of media coverage?

• I am led to believe that quite possibly your station might have a history of keeping information from Minnesotans.
• What other conclusion should I draw if you decide to take this current stance with this Patriotic group of Veterans and Military families?
• Especially when your main complaint is that they are critical of the media.

For crying out loud, do you really think that these men and women in these ads haven’t earned the right to question the media coverage of the war, when they see something totally different on the TV here at home, from what they saw with their own eyes in Iraq?

I look forward to hearing more information as to exactly why your station decided against allowing these Veterans and Military families to tell their side of the story on the air. With the coming onslaught of political ads Minnesota will soon be facing, from both sides of the political spectrum, Minnesotans deserve to know what exactly what your station’s criteria for censoring political speech is.

That way we will be able to decide what is true and what is not. We won’t have to hope you have made the decision for us already, with out us even knowing it.

Sincerely,
Andy Aplikowski