Centennial Commons now open for U City residents

Indeed, Centennial Commons has come a long way over the past year and a half. Nearly tripling in size to 60,000 square feet, the building includes a number of amenities.

They include aerobic and strength fitness areas; year-round indoor shower facilities; an elevated 1/13th-mile track; a dozen basketball hoops on two basketball courts that can be converted into volleyball courts; flat-screen televisions; an indoor soccer field; concessions; an indoor play area for younger children; multi-purpose rooms; arcade games; and several table
games.

See STL Today article: Recreation in style: Centennial Commons reflects trend in upscale rec centers

Killing the Patriot Act

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/012706.wmv'

McCaskill Follows Lead of Dean, Other Northeastern Liberals in Opposing Alito Nomination

JEFFERSON CITY – Last Monday, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, a Northeastern liberal, broke the news to Missourians that Claire McCaskill would oppose the nomination of Samuel S. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. In his remarks to a Kansas City audience that included McCaskill, Dean said, “If Claire McCaskill were in the Senate, there would be one less vote for Judge (Samuel) Alito.”1 Dean’s announcement was not refuted by McCaskill until Thursday when the Missouri Republican Party began raising questions. One day after she refuted Dean’s announcement, McCaskill admitted that she opposed Alito’s nomination.
“Last week, Missourians witnessed Claire McCaskill come to grips with her status as a handpicked candidate of Northeastern liberals,” said Missouri Republican Party spokesman John Hancock. “They engineered her candidacy, are financing her campaign, and in return she is doing their bidding.”
Since word first broke that McCaskill was entertaining a run for U.S. Senate, Northeastern liberals have been at the forefront of her decision-making process. In July 2005, she traveled to Nantucket Island, Massachusetts for a meeting sponsored by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headed by New York Senator Chuck Schumer. The meeting was hosted by Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and prominently featured Schumer.2 Later in the summer, Schumer, who had McCaskill “on speed dial”, traveled to London, England to have dinner with her.3 It was there that New York Newsday reports that McCaskill agreed to run.4
Since her announcement, McCaskill has benefited greatly from the support of Northeastern liberals. To date, $1 out of every $6 she has received has come from Schumer, Kerry and George Soros. In addition, McCaskill has already received substantial financial assistance from Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy’s leadership PAC, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd’s leadership PAC, Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed’s leadership PAC, and a committee of New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg.5 In a sign of continued support, New York’s other liberal Senator, Hillary Clinton, has been reportedly planning a New York City event for McCaskill.
“Senators Jim Talent and Kit Bond are representing Missouri’s values and interests by supporting the nomination of the highly qualified Alito,” said Hancock. “McCaskill represents the values and interests of elite Northeastern liberals, and her opposition to Alito proves that to be true.”
1 Kansas City Star, January 19, 2006
2 Kansas City Star, July 12, 2005
3 Gannett News Service, October 28, 2005
4 Newsday, November 13, 2005
5 FEC, Missourians for McCaskill

American Civil Liberties Union has become the attack dog in the secular-progressive movement

According to Bill O'Reily's talking points on his O'Reilly Factor, the American Civil Liberties Union has become the attack dog in the secular-progressive movement. This same ACLU works closely with University City. O'Reilly stated:
"Over the past few weeks the ACLU has taken out three ads attacking President Bush in the New York Times. According to the civil liberties people Mr. Bush broke the law in the NSA phone tap deal and is as bad as Richard Nixon. Of course Mr. Bush is entitled to due process and a fair hearing, something the ACLU is supposed to champion. But the ACLU has convicted the President in a ridiculous display of political partisanship. The American Civil Liberties Union has become the attack dog in the secular-progressive jihad to change the culture and political landscape in America. The proof for that assertion lies with the moneymen. The top ACLU donor is far-left businessman Peter Lewis, who has given the organization about 25-million dollars since 2001. His pal George Soros has donated more than 5-million dollars to the ACLU since 1998. The executive director and point man for the civil liberties group is 39-year-old Anthony Romero. Romero is an openly gay former Ford Foundation executive. While he was at that operation it gave seven million dollars to the ACLU so its no surprise Romero is running the place. When you combine Lewis, Soros, and Romero you have three radical Americans who are bent on changing this country. All this nonsense about protecting rights is a ruse. The ACLU is no longer about liberties or the Constitution or the regular folks. It is about imposing a radical agenda on America and you can take that to the bank."
Civil rights attorney Larry Walters defended the ACLU. "The ACLU has to take on this issue of warrantless intercepts. So this is not a radical position. This is a violation of the clearest precepts of the Constitution of intercepting U.S. citizens' communications." Alan Sears, the author of the book "The ACLU vs. America," accused the ACLU of hypocrisy. "They say they are opposed to domestic surveillance. But this is the same ACLU that approved record surveillance of its own donors, in violation of its policy. It's the same ACLU that's now authorized and approved the surveillance and buying video cameras against the police in St. Louis. The ACLU is not against domestic surveillance. It's only against domestic surveillance that doesn't further its agenda." The Factor thought the ACLU could disagree with the president, but should wait until all the facts were out to convict the president of wrongdoing. "I don't mind them taking it on. I don't mind them raising questions. I do mind them convicting someone without a full hearing."