“Those who are ignorant of their history…

…are condemned to repeat it.” No truer words have ever been uttered.

In researching the situation with Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I came across a little footnote in American history about which I was previously ignorant, and that I found astonishing and alarming. If you do not know the history behind the phrase “The switch in time that saved nine”, you might want to read this article.

It should be obvious to any thinking individual that History does not truly “repeat” itself, not exactly. But like musical phrases from a symphony, certain themes do reappear and build upon themselves. Our current economic crisis, coming at the end of a roaring period of growth in the 1990’s and 2000’s, is reminiscent of what historians now call the “Roaring Twenties”. America at that time was truly entering modernity. Our “manifest destiny” was being realized, our nation was beginning to jell. We no longer had a “Wild West” suffering frequent Indian wars, industrialization was at its peak, we had recovered from the expensive (both socially and economically) disaster of the Civil War, and our participation in World War I had resulted in America sitting as the preeminent and wealthiest nation on Earth. Deep ethnic divisions were festering and would eventually result in the explosive Civil Rights Movement which, gratefully, would be resolved “peacefully” thanks to the wise Christian leadership of Martin Luther King forty years later.

But in the meantime, the bloodiness of WWI mixed with a heady sense of relief, pride, optimism, and a healthy dose of disenchantment: after all, millions had died during the war, and intellectuals began to question the traditional values that had led the world to that “war to end all wars”. The cynicism felt by many found expression in the nihilist art form known as “Dada,” which was “anti-art” (if Art had the intention of appealing to the sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend them. Simultaneously, the relief of the end of the war resulted in an exuberance that created the “Flapper” movement, redefining the woman’s role in society, and openly disdained popular perception of what was “proper” behavior for women. The Jazz Age was born, and it should be noted that at that time Jazz was looked upon with the same disdain that Rap is now: it was hedonistic party music associated with drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, and open sexuality.

So, while Europe was rebuilding after the war, America was prospering, and “experimenting” with new and “progressive” ideals. This hedonistic attitude would eventually spread to Europe and alter their cultures as well.

But it was not all “wine and roses”: the end of the war meant an end to government spending and a deep recession, perhaps even a depression. Unemployment reached 20%. Runaway inflation was destroying the economy. Three consecutive Republican Presidents combated this trend with debt reduction, tax cuts, reduced spending, and a close relationship between government and industry. “Consumerism” was born, and while some benefitted, large portions of the population saw no real increase in their overall wealth. To use today’s Progressive jargon: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Or remained equally poor, to be fair. The normalcy of the economic boom in the 1920s resulted in an explosive growth of government and spending that would eventually come to haunt the country. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover, real per capita federal spending increased by 88%.

The Republican policies worked. For most of the decade, the economy not only recovered, but also began to boom. Overconfidence resulted in a speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The Republicans tried to maintain a government role as “arbiter” and avoid direct intervention.

But when the stock markets crashed, and banks collapsed, the mood in the country understandably shifted, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs (there were actually two) are the historic inspiration for President Obama’s contemporary Reinvestment Act. The first New Deal was aimed at helping the Banks and the railroads, the key industry at that time. He abandoned the gold standard, and enacted “work relief” programs, in which the government would provide jobs to millions of Americans. The second act included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid the agricultural sector, particularly tenant farmers and migrant workers.

Take a moment to reflect upon that history, comparing what you know about the period in US history from WWII, through Viet Nam, to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the sweeping reforms he enacted, to the two decades of prosperity of the ‘90s through 2007. An historical theme runs through both periods, to be punctuated poignantly by the current economic collapse and election of President Obama. From exuberance and economic glory, to excess, moral decline, a willingness to redefine the nation's values based upon whimsical fancy, to the heady and uncontrolled expanse of government, while the investors drunkenly and greedily set aside better judgement for a quick profit.

Returning to the New Deal; Roosevelt’s plans ran afoul of the Supreme Court. That court repeatedly shot down Roosevelt’s plans for perceived constitutional violations, because the reach of government was expanding far beyond the limitations to Federal Government powers stated within the constitution.

Infuriated, Roosevelt devised a plan. The US Constitution does not expressly limit the number of justices on the court to nine justices. So Roosevelt created the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known popularly as “The Court-Packing Plan.” He would expand the court to 15 judges and appoint six new, liberal judges to swing the court in his favor and allow him control the Supreme Court.

About the time the Court-Packing Plan was about to be enacted, Justice Owen Roberts, who had consistently voted against most of the New Deal provisions, changed his votes and started approving the plans. This is the source of the phrase, “a switch in time saved nine”: by changing his vote, acquiescing to the dominating mood at the time, Roberts avoided a major overhaul of the Supreme Court.

The implications for today’s America are not trivial. The level of disenchantment caused by the economic collapse following on two decades of economic prosperity is deep and radical. The common mantra that “we must act to avoid disaster” has allowed politicians to leverage off the people’s fears, and guide the nation onto an unprecedented path. The Obama administration, enjoying an almost cult-like following, has been given free rein to spend more money in less than 100 days than previous administrations combined. The government has interfered with the contract obligations of investors and given unwarranted ownership to unions in today’s auto-making industry.

But the Obama administrations goals are far grander than this. The Progressives want to force the nation to redefine marriage, remove limits on even the most reprehensible forms of abortion, radically alter the medical industry, and force through “transformational” policies based upon hysterical fears about global catastrophe that would fundamentally alter American society in every respect. They have repeatedly suggested their interest in controlling access to guns, and nominated as a Supreme Court Justice a woman who believes that gun ownership is not a “Fundamental Right”. They want to grant amnesty to tens of millions of people who entered the country illegally and oppose local and state police forces from working with the federal government to enforce immigration policy.

Annoyed that Americans would dare to defy them and instead rally around popular media spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, they float the idea of imposing a “Fairness Doctrine” that would force radio stations to essentially subsidize unpopular beliefs and create “popular commissions” to monitor and report on compliance. And at a time in which our national security is threatened by a cabal of rogue states and radical terrorist organizations, they are gutting the national defense, hamstringing our intelligence organizations, and persecute the previous administration’s officials for the tactics they used to keep us safe.

So, if the wheels continue to come off the cart, what’s to say that the proposals will not become increasingly radical? This administration has already admitted that their philosophy is to use “crisis” as an “opportunity”. As the Obama administration looks back at the radically populist policies of the Roosevelt administration, who is to say that Obama could not “resuscitate” the Court-Packing Plan in order to lock in control over the Supreme Court?

When the effects of Obama’s massive spending results in inflation, when the dollar has collapsed due to their uncontrolled printing of worthless money, as fuel prices rise and the cost of basic necessities such as food, energy, and transportation necessarily rise and result in greater unemployment, hunger, desperation, a natural outcome will be for the administration to use the next crisis as an opportunity to enact even more desperate “temporary” measures.

Everything I’m describing is exactly what happened in Venezuela over the past ten years. Step by step, President Chavez took control of the Congress, then declared a crisis and took control of the court, then expanded the court from nine to thirteen judges. He decreed price controls that forced private industries to deliver “basic goods” at below cost. When they could not do that, he nationalized them, giving them to his friends and supportive interest groups, such as unions. He closed down the largest opposition television network by refusing to renew their “broadcast concession,” and has now threatened the last major free network with the same. He funded community activist groups that performed acts intimidation, as well as electoral fraud. All the while, he maintained popular support by saying that he was doing this in the interests of the poor, the unemployed, the ethnic minority victims of capitalism, even “to save the world” because capitalism is destroying the environment. His next step was to attempt to alter the constitution to give himself perpetual re-election.

So, tell me: is what I described about Chavez, and Roosevelt, all that different from what we know about Obama?

Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom

Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom

Forces within our nation appear to be on two simultaneous and radically divergent paths. On the one hand, a number of states are passing laws that expand citizen gun-ownership and carry rights, such as the one in Texas that gives the go-ahead for concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons on colleges. Similarly, on the national level, a recent Senate measure would allow loaded guns in national parks. On the other hand, “progressives” continue to push to limit gun-ownership and increase the difficulty of the average law-abiding citizen to own guns.

In my previous articles I have discussed the illogical opinions and laws about assault weapons bans, and the second amendment rights that afford all (non-criminal) citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I continue to be interested in this topic and educate myself because the “Progressives” continue to try to find ways to end-run around the constitution. I believe the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is yet another covert attempt to accomplish that goal.

So I decided to take on the Progressives’ primary excuse why guns should be banned: Civilized societies that ban guns experience fewer homicides, less violence and enjoy a lower crime rate.

But is that true?

I found a fascinating and enlightening study published by bepress Legal Series, entitled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” by Gary Mauser and Don B. Kates.

In this 117 page, highly researched and cited article, the two authors undertook the exact analysis I had wanted to perform and their findings cut the Progressives off at the knees.

For example, Progressive often cite the low crime rate in England and praise the strict gun bans in place in that country. Kates and Mauser document that this is not the case at all.

“The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws.
When it had no firearms restrictions [19th and early 20th Century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.... Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.”

They continue:
“In the late 1990s England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands were confiscated from owners law abiding enough to turn them in. Without suggesting this caused violence, the bans' ineffectiveness was such that by year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England had the developed world’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the U.S.”

Let that soak in a moment: Despite the strict gun bans in England, the violent crime rate in England actually surpassed that of the United States in 2000!

The authors extended their research to cover thirty six countries and found that, in the countries with the strictest gun ban laws, violence did not decrease. To the contrary, violent crimes were lowest in countries where gun ownership was highest.

“Nations with higher gun ownership rates do not have higher murder (or suicide) rates than do those with lower gun ownership…Consider the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates. (Actually, those nations with least gun ownership generally seem to have the highest murder rates.)”

“The non-correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of
statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of ‘homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990- 1995’ to gun ownership levels showed ‘no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate.’ Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which ‘no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.’…Thus it is not just the murder rate in gun-less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American.”

Instead, they came to the conclusion that violence is determined by a number of social factors, and that a society that is prone to violent expression will have higher rates of violent crimes, and that tools—or weapons—chosen by the criminal are irrelevant. “As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill.”

They then come to the conclusion that “one reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals, (and this is especially true of murderers) ‘almost always have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.’ So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob or murder. By the same token violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”

If you cannot stomach the opinions of these two American lawyers, consider the opinion of a retired English Police Officer who helped pen one of the premier studies of English gun control. “Done by a senior English police official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the early 1970s): Half a century of strict controls has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than ever before. No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.”

Here in America, the bias of opinion by primarily liberal journalists and editors results in a bias in published articles. Gun crime receives inordinate attention by the media, while violent crime committed by other means is often overlooked. But the headlines are everywhere, if we choose to look: Man murders wife and kids with Bush-Axe. Woman suffocates her own son. Spider Man 3 actress hangs herself. Parents of 9 year old boy stabbed to death in front of him.

In a more recent article published in 2009, Mr. Kates writes that “Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes.” Kates reviews the March 21st murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon. Mixon was “a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation”, who “epitomizes the futility of ‘gun control,’ or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults.” Kates points out that, while Progressive organizations such as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns allege that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens,” the Mixon murders were “not an anomaly.”

To the contrary, “felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced.” Restricting the access to guns for law-abiding citizens will not significantly reduce crime. As Kates illustrates, “the United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. ‘Gun control,’ therefore, only ‘controls’ those who have done nothing to merit such regulations. Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods—but with no supporting references. For there are none.”

It is important to spread this information at this time, as President Obama attempts to get Judge Sotomayor confirmed for the supreme court, because while she was on the Second Circuit Appeals Court—and she has publicly admitted to thinking that appeals courts are “where policy is made”—she opined that the Second Amendment is not a “Fundamental Right”, and therefore “does not apply to the states”. In other words, in keeping with Obama’s support of gun control laws, states can individually restrict gun ownership.

This same judge was also recorded stating that, as a Latina woman, she would probably have greater wisdom than her white, male counterparts. Overlooking the overt racist content of that statement, we find that her activist interpretation of the constitution puts in question that presumed “wisdom”. As was pointed out in a Washington Times article about Sotomayer’s opinions, The ‘Empathy’ Nominee; “The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the ‘richness’ of her experience comes to believe it should be.”

We are able to turn the tables on Judge Sotomayor in this particular instance. Being the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to the country, perhaps she is not fully steeped in the history of our nation. It may be important to note that she is also a member of the "radical" political group called La Raza, which has connections with groups advocating for the separation of several South Western states from the United States. It's difficult to see how membership to that organization could be considered "wise".

Maybe she lacks a deep understanding of the reasoning behind the second amendment, and dismisses the wisdom of our white male founding fathers. These same intellectual giants, who clearly enumerated the Second Amendment to protect our individual right to keep and bear arms, feared that in the distant future, activist judges might interpret the existence of a list of “Fundamental Rights” enumerated in the Bill of Rights to mean that any “rights” not contained therein could be considered to be something other than “Fundamental”, and thus to be abridged.

For this reason, they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words, Judge:

The Second Amendment is not up for dispute, cannot be abridged or limited, and your arrogant presumption that you were gifted extraordinary wisdom based upon your color and anatomy is false.

A wonderful comment from "rto"

I was reading a story about the behavior of the Whitehouse press corp who apparently refused to turn off their cellphones and repeatedly interrupted the buffoon Whitehouse press secretary known as Robert Gibbs. The article itself was interesting and amusing. But within the readers' comments was a little nugget from "rto", no more detail provided. I liked it, and thought I'd post it so it might be read more widely. Kudos to the mysterious "rto".

Barack Obama:
A “reverend and mentor” who GD’s America...
A wife who has never been “proud” of America...
A man who runs on transparency – then seals his college records to prove it...
A man who claims citizenship – then hires a team of lawyers to secure it...
A man who would attempt to destroy another life – simply for asking a question he should have answered...
A man who campaigns on eight years of runaway spending and a deficit – then quadruples it in less than 100 days...
A man who bans lobbyist – then attempts to hire one...
A man who condemns cheats and dishonesty – then appoints one to run the treasury...
A man who vows to find all of the tax cheats in this country – but fails to turn around and confront one...
A man who has never held a job – but the most important one in the world...
A man who feels hard work should pay – for those who choose not to work…
A man who’s ability to speak – is dictated by his ability to read….
A man who feels government can solve the problems it faces – while addressing everything but the problems it created…
A man who signs a contract – but does not read it....
A man who runs a government – the opposite way he runs his home…
A man who preaches “equality for all” – then targets 5% unequally...
A man who pledges to reduce the tax for 95% then raises them for 100%...
A man who feels all have the right to own a home – even if they cannot pay for it….
A man who speaks of responsible behavior – then throws a party every Wednesday night....
A man who tells me to show fiscal responsibility – then borrows and spends money he doesn’t have....
A man who loans my money to a bank – then refuses to allow that bank to repay me my money....
A man who loans my money to a car company – then gives majority ownership to the autoworkers union who bankrupted it...
A man who supports failure “in” this country – while promoting failure “of” this country...
A man who speaks of practical solutions – using impractical methods…
A man who shows me nothing for my money that he spent – and tells me it’s “my patriotic duty” to give him more...
A man who has never run a business – but would like to tell me how to run mine...
A man who would operate the highest office in the land – similar to the way the mafia operates the lowest...
A man who pledges allegiance to the constitution – then nullifies and voids a perfectly legal contract protected by it...
A man who follows the belief that upholding the immigration laws of America – is unpatriotic and unAmerican...
A man who turns his back on this countries friends – while embracing this countries sworn enemies...
A man who is willing to provided for those who attacked this country – while degrading those trying to defend it...
A man who would even think of not providing for this countries fallen – after his order fell them...
A man who “voices” free choice – then systematically seeks to silence the voiceless...
A man who pleads for God’s blessing of America – then destroys the greatest gift ever given to it....

When government owns the press

Life is full of ironies.

I remember the grand days of the GOP, when Reagan stated so astutely that “Government is not the solution to our problems; Government is the problem.” For a wonderful period of time afterward, the fashion was to reduce government, and by the end of the Clinton era, the Democrat President and the Republican Congress and Senate had reduced government enough that we actually had a budget surplus.

After the September 11th attack, however, the Republicans suddenly forgot their roots and decided that we needed new bureaucracies to “keep us safe”. That was the first irony. The pendulum began to swing in the opposite direction, heralding a return to the era of big government. The ultra-liberal Obama administration is taking this to its orgiastic conclusion, and we now see a promise of massive, intrusive government, massive spending, and massive debts. Oh, and of course, massive taxes to pay for it all.

We’re informed that “It’s patriotic to pay taxes.”
Then we are told that “higher taxes will stimulate the economy because the government won’t have to borrow so much, there will be more private capital available for investment, so interest rates will go down.”
“All this government spending will stimulate the economy and we will see record growth,” they promise.
“We have no intention of running the automobile industry,” said the Obama administration, as they “rescued” the company, declared that they owned it, fired the executives, cut their advertizing budgets in half, gave majority stake to the Unions that did not own sufficient stock to warrant this gift, and violated the constitutional protections of the shareholders by bullying them in the bankruptcy negotiations.
“We don’t want to nationalize the banks,” they soothed, while gobbling up one after another, controlling their boards, refusing to allow the banks to repay the money, and tinkering in their internal policies.

But now we have some great news to celebrate. Washington State has approved a bailout of its newspapers! Yes, it’s true. And isn’t it glorious?

No, they won’t be actually giving the papers money. You see, in these challenging times, the Seattle Times can’t compete with online news sources. They are going to collapse, just like the Rocky Mountain News and others before them. Sound the bugles, the liberals have come riding over the hills with—irony number two—a 40% tax cut.

Wait a minute. Aren’t tax cuts the hallmark of Republican policies?

Well, why stop there? As Conservatives have been saying, if you want to stimulate the economy, cut corporate taxes! Don’t stop with the newspapers, cut the taxes on the auto industry! Cut taxes on the medical industry! Reduce the costs of doing business and watch how they grow.

The flip side of the tax cut for the newspapers is something that should alarm us all. I heard a radio commentator state that the newspapers should never be given “government money”. In reality, they are not being given “government money”, but rather are being allowed to keep a greater share of their own money. But the perspective is clear: they are being given “government money”.

If a newspaper receives money from the government, how can it possibly continue to be an independent watchdog of those same politicians that gave them the funds?

I’m sure we will be calmed with promises that “we have no intention of owning the newspapers, controlling their content, or restricting their editorials.”

And we would believe them because they have already demonstrated their noble intentions with the auto and banking industries.

If anything, we already were witness to the voluntary prostration of the news media to the socialist agenda during the 2008 elections. We are witness to their continued unwillingness to ask tough questions of Dear Leader Obama. We see how they verbally berate, assault, insult, and malign conservatives, invoking accusations of treachery, vulgar references to oral sex, and misogynist denigrations of innocent women who dare to express their values.

So why should we be concerned that these same papers are now accepting bailout bucks from the socialists?

Go back to sleep, people. There is nothing to see. Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez has already closed down opposition channel RCTV, forcing them to broadcast from Colombia, and now promises a “little surprise” as he prepares to shut down the last free television network, Globovision.

But that would never happen here. This is America. OK, sure, Chavez is a socialist, and Obama is a socialist, but Obama is a nice guy. We can trust Dear Leader with our freedoms.

Miss America, or Miss Gay America?

Carrie Prejean won the battle. She can keep her title as Miss California USA, and remain the runner up for Miss America. Too bad, Perez Hilton! Your vulgar tirades and obscene insults not only did not prevail, but they left you (and your gay cohorts) with a black eye.

It sounds like it’s just too much to handle for Shanna Moakler, the Miss USA Director who had been campaigning behind the scenes to have Donald Trump kick Prejean out. Why would she do that?

It turns out that Moakler didn’t approve of Prejean’s traditional view of marriage, and the fact that the scandal provoked by Perez Hilton’s bigoted attacks on Prejean turned Miss California into the de facto poster child for traditional marriage. Moakler rankled at the fact that Prejean began speaking at events that opposed gay marriage, a cause for which Moakler is a champion.

Moakler resigned today, saying:
"Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization…I cannot with a clear conscience move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth."

A description of the role of Miss America (from the Miss America website), reads:
“Today, Miss America travels approximately 20,000 miles a month, changing her location every 24 to 48 hours. She tours the nation reaching out to support her ideals, committed to helping others. Miss America is more than just a title. She is a woman who reflects a tradition of style, sophistication and service.”

Note that Miss America reaches out to support her ideals—not some prescribed set of ideals that are imposed upon her. If the newly crowned Miss America, Katie Stam, were incapable of fulfilling her duties, then Miss Prejean would step in to replace her. And in that case, she would be free to promote her ideals, which obviously include promoting a traditional definition of marriage.

So Moakler’s resignation is a clear protest that, unless Miss America represents her personal ideals, she refuses to support it, and is removing herself like the narcissistic brat she is. In her myopic view, which she shares with the gay rights fanatics, there is only one right way of viewing this topic, and it’s her view. Her opinion is the right opinion, she presumes to have the moral high ground, and cannot associate herself with any heretics who disagree with her. Miss Prejean must appear to her to be as offensive as a White-Supremacist or a Neo-Nazi.

This arrogance cannot be disregarded as unique: it is emblematic of the intolerance of the entire gay-rights movement, because it is so closely aligned with the actions and offensively stated beliefs of Perez Hilton.

The great irony is that Hilton has been allowed to remain, and was even encouraged by Trump to return in the future. A few semi-topless images of Miss Prejean warranted a full investigation into her worthiness as a “Miss America” representative, and yet Hilton’s disparagement of Miss California as a “dumb bitch” does not draw even the slightest criticism?

In short, the message is clear: men who like sex with women but who disrespect women are disgusting misogynists, but men who like sex with other men and disrespect women are—as Keith Olbermann put it—“intellectual titans”. And only women who approve of men who like men are worthy of the crown.

Perhaps we should rename the contest: The Miss Gay America Pageant.

Not even queers should be allowed to denigrate women

In my previous blog, Hate Speech and Secret Agendas, I exposed the Left’s contradictory “values” that have been on display as they regularly complain about the “insulting” or “degrading” comments made by some members of the Right, while looking the other way as their own leaders and icons make similarly insulting comments.

Since the writing of that article, yet another incident has occurred to prove my point.

When Miss California Carrie Prejean responded to the question about gay marriage posed to her by gay activist beauty judge Perez Hilton, she bravely answered that she believed marriage should remain defined as the union between a man and a woman. We all know about Perez Hilton’s vile response, in which he posted a video blog calling her a “dumb bitch”. Hilton not only refused to apologize, but instead said:

"I called her the 'b' word, and hey, I was thinking the 'c' word," Hilton said during an MSNBC interview.
Where are the outraged feminists? We now have liberals calling both Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean a cunt, and not a word of protest.
What’s more, the issue arose during the Miss America pageant, which purportedly attempts to portray women in a positive light, showing them not only as alluring and beautiful, but intelligent and strong. When the pageant owner, Donald Trump, intervened, he decided that Ms Prejean had spoken honestly to a tough question posed to her and should not be punished for that. In fact, he pointed out that her response was identical to that of the beloved Dear Leader, Barack Obama.
But then he also said that he would “love” for Perez Hilton to return and act as a judge in the future.
Are you kidding me?
This is the same queer Perez Hilton who posted the following image on his blog with an ejaculating penis pointed at her mouth:



I have never been so disgusted with the feminist movement in all my life. No man, not even a queer, should be allowed to denigrate women in this manner and be greeted by such resounding, complicit silence.

Shame on the feminists. Shame on the queers. And shame on Donald Trump for allowing it to continue.

The illusion has been revealed: the strings are now visible.

When Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said she would reject nearly half of the federal stimulus money, she was lauded by conservatives. But she was also brutally attacked by liberals who claimed she was putting her state’s well-being in jeopardy just to make a political statement.

In March of this year, she said that she would only accept 55% of the federal economic stimulus money, because “we are not requesting funds intended to just grow government.” Palin reiterated that, in her opinion, the Federal Government had “too many strings attached” and accepting the money “would create unsustainable burdens on the state government once the federal money ran out.”

The greedy guts pols in Alaska's Legislature, however, wanted the “free money”. They “conducted more than 20 public hearings on the federal stimulus package, and legislative leaders said they couldn't find any of the strings attached to the funds that Palin had warned about.”

So liberals laughed and clapped and nearly broke their arms slapping themselves on the back with self-congratulatory praise when Palin finally gave in and accepted almost all of the money.

But today we hear that the Obama administration is threatening the state of California with rescinding all of the federal bailout money if the Schwarzenegger administration does not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.

Faced with a budget shortfall in the tens of billions of dollars, the California government must find cuts to reduce their deficit, or face collapse. The legislators there decided to cut the wages from $12.10 to $10.10 per hour, which would save California $74 million. But the Obama administration, being heavily indebted to Unions, is now violating California’s sovereignty and limiting the actions the state can take to restore its fiscal health.

Strings? What strings?

Perhaps California will be the next state, following Texas and Oklahoma, to reiterate its state sovereignty.

Hate Speech and Secret Agendas

This past week, Britain’s Home Secretary Jacqui Smith published a list of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October due to their “extreme behavior” or speech. While this list did contain the names of a number of actual terrorists, it also included that of Michael Savage, conservative American talk show host who is for his libertarian bent.
Smith explained her decision by saying that "it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country."
Having listened to perhaps a half dozen of Savages programs, I have a fairly limited exposure to his “rants”, but enough to be able to comment that, in my experience, I have never heard Savage say anything I would consider qualifies him as an “extremist”. He regularly criticizes liberals, but also vents on Republicans whom he believes are not living up to conservative or libertarian ideals. He vehemently denies having ever called for any violence, and I have never heard him do so either. According to the Huffington Post, Savage has called the Quran a “book of hate”, among other things, and responds to the accusations that he is a dangerous extremist by saying: "She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech?”

But perhaps facts are unimportant to liberals in power: what matters is the “feeling” they get when listening to people whose opinions they don’t share. And when they hear these opinions, rather than agreeing that it constitutes part of the individual’s constitutional rights of freedom of speech, they instead seek to shut down the discussion. In this case, Smith continues that Savage is "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause intercommunity tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country".

What is interesting in this quote is not that Savage is promoting violence, but that rejection of his speech might “cause intercommunity tension or even violence”. Really? Who exactly would be likely to respond violently to his statement that the Quran is a “book of hate”? Oh, that’s right; the same people who murdered Theo van Gogh: the Muslims.

In our country, the First Amendment to the US constitution was written to protect the individual’s right to speech—especially speech considered by some to be “offensive”. Why? Because the founding fathers were reacting the tyranny of a government that prohibited speech that offended the powerful and was perceived to threaten the status quo. Perhaps the queasy English still cannot stomach powerful language, which is why the books of Jonathon Swift were once banned. Fear of a reaction to speech by groups that react violently to criticism has led the UN to consider banning any statements that “offend Islam”. Beware the global thought police knocking down your door someday lest your statements offend someone in another part of the globe.

Given their way, liberals would have this policy of banning speech also apply to a wide range of “protected” groups. Here in the USA, liberals are pushing to expand “hate crime” legislation to cover a wide variety of groups based upon their sexuality. Reacting to the pressures of the pro-gay constituency, House Judiciary Democrats are promoting HR 1913. This bill would specify protections for anyone victimized by a hate crime to include “sexual orientation”, without limitations on the definition of “sexual orientation”. The idea is that homosexuals should be protected from any sort of criminal victimization including negative, insulting or degrading comments about their sexual orientation. But when some conservatives realized that this would also grant protections to folks whose sexual orientation included pedophilia, they tried to amend the act to exclude that and a few other sexual proclivities—and these proposed changes were rejected.

According to an article published in WVW News, “No homosexual, whether he be into sado-masochism, bestiality, transvestism, necrophilia (sex with the dead), or pedophilia, should consider himself outside special protection.” In fact, no person with those orientations and many more would be excluded.

In short, by definition of a “Hate Crime”, a person does not just have to perpetrate a violent act against a protected group, because “Hate Speech” is also a Hate Crime. Therefore, any speech deemed by the elite to constitute Hate Speech would be covered and would be punishable.

A definition of Hate Speech given at Wikipedia includes the following:
“Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.”

So what does this mean for you and me? If we were to say, for example, that “pedophiles are monsters”, the champions of diverse sexual orientations could say we were “degrading” pedophiles, our language could be qualified as “hate speech”, and that we had committed a “hate crime”. To say that necrophiliacs—yes, people who find it fulfilling to have intercourse with corpses—were “disgusting creeps”, we again would have committed a crime. What about zoophiles (people who have sex with animals)? They would also be protected.

Mind you, the speech does not have to promote violence or even use insulting language to be considered by some to be Hate Speech. There are cases were individuals who simply stated that they believed homosexuality to be immoral or perverted were accused of a Hate Crime. And in the pro-queer hysteria that is energizing the liberals, even if speech does not pass the threshold of a punishable Hate Crime, it can trigger virulent attacks against the individual, such as in the recent case of Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Responding to a question about her opinion about Gay Marriage posed to her by Miss America judge Perez Hilton, Miss Prejean honestly stated that her religious and personal beliefs led her to believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. For that simple response, Hilton posted a blog video calling her a “dumb bitch”. While on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann, Michael Musto even said that he knew that Miss Prejean was “formerly Harry Prejean, a homophobic man who liked marriage so much he did it three times” and underwent surgery to get her “penis” cut off, while Olbermann insulted her by saying “she is not only just a boob, but a fake boob.”

Last time I checked, women were also protected from misogynist Hate Speech—but apparently not if it comes from a gay, or a popular liberal talk show host. The hatred in their opinions that spurted from their lips was utterly undeniable and was the most offensive Speech from the left since Obama supporters sported t-shirts reading “Sarah Palin is a cunt.”

This stunning example of hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg, and hints at a disturbing trend of the injustice and oppression to come.

In recent years, another bastion of traditional values that has come under attack is the Boy Scouts of America organization (BSA). Their offense: they reject homosexuals participating in the organization. The liberal, pro-queer media has portrayed their position as a clear example of homophobia, In his article, “Pedophile Priests and Boy Scouts”, David Kupelian writes:
“In the last year or so, many Americans, organizations and corporations have withdrawn their financial and moral support from the Boy Scouts of America, marginalizing and condemning the organization as bigoted and hateful. Many United Way chapters have ceased to fund the BSA, some local governments have declared it to be discriminatory, and, toward the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton signed an executive order used by a federal agency to try to evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands.”

He explains that, while the public in general has correctly chastised the Catholic Church for not taking drastic steps to curtail the sexual exploitation of children by Priests, the liberals have attacked the BSA as “homophobes” because they actually did take steps to protect the boys in the organization. Kupelian explains, “Historically, the BSA has had a serious problem with sexual offenses by male leaders against Scouts – so serious that prevention has become a major preoccupation, with constant leader screening and training, the ‘two-deep leadership’ requirement and programs for Scouts to identify warning signs of inappropriate advances by adults.”

So the BSA is attacked and vilified for taking preventative steps to prevent homosexual exploitation of the young boys in the organization, while the Catholic Church is contradictorily attacked for NOT taking similar preventative steps!

Kupelian then reveals a shocking analysis. The mainstream liberal media has misreported the “Church scandal” in such a way as to hide the disgusting truth that the majority of pedophile cases were homosexual. They did this by incorrectly lumping cases where heterosexual priests engaged in inappropriate activity with women as “pedophilia”, in order to increase the percentage of hetero-pedophilia and disguise the rampant homosexual proclivities of many of the Priests. He writes: “Stephen Rubino, a lawyer who has represented over 300 alleged victims of priest abuse, estimates 85 percent of the victims have been teen-age boys. And Catholic psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has treated many victims and offending priests, agrees with that figure, noting that 90 percent of his patients are either abused teen-age males or their priest abusers.”

Other investigations come to the same conclusion. " ‘Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,’ wrote Steve Baldwin in, ‘Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,’ soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.” How rampant is the problem?

" ‘The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,’ said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. ‘Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.’"

Before you come to the conclusion that this is “Hate Speech” promoted by conservative Homophobes, consider the following citations from the article:
• The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."
• In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."
• Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."
• In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
• Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

We can now understand the motivations for why the pro-gay activists want to include protections in HR 1913 for Pedophiles and other perverts: because, from their perspective, “they are us”, so to speak. And, were they given the power they so desire, they would label the research discussed above as “Hate Speech”, the authors could be prosecuted as criminals. The liberals speak with forked tongues, condemning “pedophile priests” on the one hand, but demanding that anyone who slurs queer pedophiles be prosecutable for having committed Hate Crimes.

***UPDATE***
Barely two hours after posting this blog, I found the following interesting news:
Facebook urged to remove Holocaust-Denial Sites. "Attorney Brian Cuban, brother of Dallas Mavericks team owner Mark Cuban, has been trying since last year to have the pages of groups with such names as "Holocaust: A Series of Lies," and "Holocaust is a Holohoax" removed from Facebook." He continues: "There is no First Amendment right to free speech in the private realm," Cuban said. "This isn't a freedom-of-speech issue. Facebook is free to set the standard that they wish."
Really? As repulsive as Holocaust Denial is, and I find it pretty disgusting, I find it interesting that we are told that there is "no First Amendment right in the private realm". So Facebook is "free to set the standard that they wish"?
Why then was the same standard not applied to the dating service eHarmony, which did not want to create a parralel homosexual dating service? After months of pressure and attacks that the owners were homophobes (there's that word again), eHarmony was sued and finally caved in, after being sued for being exclusive.
The left has exposed its contradictory values yet again.

Harold and Kumar go to the Whitehouse

Obama, Biden wait in line to buy hamburgers

May 5 02:35 PM US/Eastern By BEEN FELT Associated Press Writer

*CLARIFICATION: This satirical article contains text directly snagged from a real AP article by Ben Feller. I have used his wording exactly in the first part of the article (I'll bookstand his writing with asterisks *abc* to avoid being accused of plagiarism). I then took creative liberty with the story. Enjoy

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) - A funny thing happened at a local burger joint: *When you want a burger, you have to have a burger. In this state of mind, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden took a short—but wholly noticeable—motorcade ride from the White House to Virginia and pulled into a small, independent burger joint called Ray's Hell Burger.

The two leaders went right up to the counter where the meat was being grilled and ordered. The restaurant, which prides itself on premium aged 10-ounce burgers, sits in a small strip plaza. The burgers sell for $6.95. *

Their conversation was recorded by a camera hidden by a GOP operative posing as a Burger Technician. The transcript below is (mostly) unedited.
President Obama: So, Joe, what do you, uh, recommend?
Vice President Biden: I tell my family and friends to avoid joints like this, especially during rush hours when the chance of being infected by swine flu is greatest, but I guess-
Obama: Joe, I mean, what’s good here?
Biden: Oh, sorry, I guess I just feel so bad about that latest gaffe, you know, I’m kind of fixated-
Obama: Joe, seriously, stay on task. We gotta run back to the White House before the Secret Service notices we’re gone.
Biden: Oh, man. Yeah, I did it again. Be cool, Joe, be cool. I was thinking about a Buffalo Burger with Bacon.
Obama: Buffalo? Isn’t that an endangered species, Joe? What would our PETA friends say?
Biden: You mean it’s bison? I thought that meant it was from upstate New York! Yuck. I’d never knowingly eat a buffalo.
Obama: What else do you recommend?
Biden: I should probably never be sent out for a speaking engagement without our best handlers-
Obama: Dammit Joe, I’m talking burgers here, and there’s a line of patrons behind us waiting. Sorry folks…{to a swooning patron behind him} Yes, I am the One. I have a gift. {Turning back to Biden} Joe, c’mon. Tell me what’s good.
Biden: The Mushroom burger might be good. {Leaning close and whispering to the President} Tell me the truth, Barry, you ever try magic ‘shrooms when you were in college?
Obama: {Smiling coyly} My, uhm, lips…are sealed. {Placing order} It took me over 100 days to get a recommendation from my VP I could agree with! {the other patrons laugh and applaud adoringly} I think I’ll take the advice of my Vice President, and have a ‘shroom burger.
Biden: {Over-excited and seeking approval from the crowd} I finally did it! That was a good recommendation. I want one, too.
Obama: {Looks disapprovingly at his VP} You’re gonna—you’re gonna have the same thing as me?
Biden: {Looking unsure} Yeessss….?
Obama: {Shakes his head} That wouldn’t look…cool, Joe. {Whispering in Joe’s ear} You need to look like you can…like you can think for yourself. Show some originality.
Biden: {Seriously on the spot, gets nervous, appears to wet himself} In that case…I want the jalapenis burger…with extra jalapenis.
Obama: {Shocked} What did you order? The hollow…what?
Biden: Jalapenis Burger. You know, hot peppars.
Obama: God, Joe, could you be any more gay? {Patrons laugh hysterically} It’s pronounced ha-la-pain-yos, not “hollow-penis”.
Biden: Oh. Is that right? I don’t habla.
Obama: Stick with me, Joe. Uno, dos, tres, cuatro de cinco…
Ray’s Hell Burger Attendant taking the order behind counter: Mr. President, do you want the watermelon, or corn with that?
Obama: {Offended} What? Watermelon? Why would you ask that? Oh, I get it, it’s because I’m black, right? Like “give the first black President watermelon instead of Fries"! I want French Fries, mister. Not “Freedom Fries” like the stupid neocons order, and you better say you’re sorry for that racist comment-
Biden: {Trying to stop Obama} Uh, Barry! They don’t-
Obama: Because if you don’t apologize, and now, mister, I’ll nationalize this little redneck dive and give it to union burger floppers!
Biden: {Desperately grabbing Obama’s arm} Barry, they don’t serve fries here. They only serve watermelon and corn!
Obama: {Trying to regain his cool} No French Fries? No? {Looks to the crowd for confirmation…they nod, reassuringly}. Well then, I’ll take the corn. No watermelon for this guy.
Biden: I’ll take the watermelon.
Obama: Joe, take the corn.
Biden: But I want the watermelon.
Obama: Take the goddamn corn.
Biden: But you said I had to look like I could think-
Obama: The frickin’ corn, Joe.
Biden: I hate watermelon. I want the corn.
Obama reaches into his pocket and pulls out a wad of cash.
Biden: Hey, Barry, I seem to have left my wallet again, doggon it! And I had wanted to invite you this time.
Obama: {Shakes his head} We need to get you one of those wallets with a chain, Joe. You never can find your wallet when it’s time to pay.
Biden: No, really, I was going to pay this time, honest. {The crowd boos the Veep} Really, I was!
Obama: {Raises his hand as if to bless the crowd} Forgive him, my people. He literally knows not what he does. {Crowd applauds the President’s magnanimity} You know, this round is on me. Burgers and circuses for everyone!
The President slaps down a wad of bills on the counter, picks up the bag of food the attendant has handed him, grabs his befuddled VP by the elbow, and struts slowly out of the restaurant, bathed in the praise of his worshipping followers.

Denver Cops: Illegals can drive illegally, but Vets' cars will be impounded

One of the terrible consequences of uncontrolled illegal immigration has been that, after crossing the border and violating our federal laws, many of these immigrants then begin driving without having acquired a driver’s license. And of course, if they don’t have a valid driver’s license, they also lack proper auto insurance.

In Denver, Colorado, an illegal immigrant by the name of Francis Hernandez was driving recklessly when he caused an automobile crash that killed three US citizens. Hernandez had been arrested 16 times, but—as usual—had not been deported. He had repeatedly obtained automobiles he then drove illegally and recklessly. His callous disregard for American laws eventually resulted in vehicular homicide of three law-abiding citizens, including a three year old boy.

In response to the growing frustration Denverites felt about the problem, citizens passed the voter-initiated “I-100” ballot initiative, aimed primarily at “illegal immigrants” who were driving illegally and putting citizens in danger. The Denver Post, in yet another of its traditionally liberal, pro-immigrant editorials, encouraged voters to “Vote ‘no’” on the initiative. Democrat Mayor John Hickenlooper also has come out in opposition to the initiative.

Their opposition was based upon two main reasons: Denver “city ordinances already give police the right to seize vehicles, including those operated by illegals, under numerous circumstances. Initiative 100 would impose an additional requirement in such cases of showing proof of citizenship and/or legal immigrant status in the United States.” The Post declared that “it is clear that the real aim of Initiative 100 is to address the problem of undocumented immigrants,” spinning the reasoning into a “racial” issue, and obviating the fact that the reason for the initiative was to mitigate the safety risk these drivers pose to citizens.

The second reason: “The inclusion of the words "illegal alien" in the initiative struck many as unfair targeting of one specific group.”

Another article in the Post, by Christopher N. Osher, clarified that the new law would not force impounds, and still left it up to the officer’s discretion. According to Revekka Balancier, spokesperson for Mayor Hickenlooper, the language in the initiative “intended to make such impoundments automatic, ‘but the legal analysis does not support that.’” The language in the bill was quite clear: “the ballot language stated officers "shall" make such impoundments when a car is driven by an unlicensed driver,” with emphasis on cars driven by “illegal immigrants”.

The Post also stated that “federal appeals court already has ruled that vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers can be impounded only if they cannot be driven away by a licensed driver or secured and legally parked. Otherwise, such impoundments violate constitutional protections against unreasonable seizure.”

Fast forward to today. A local airman, Brian Furman, had recently returned to Colorado after a lengthy deployment to Iraq, where he served on the front lines, gathering intelligence about bomb-making factories and terrorist activities. While in Iraq, his Missouri license had expired, a detail he had overlooked when he was deployed because he was trying to stay alive while performing his hazardous duties.

In spite of Furman’s explanation that he had been in Iraq for over a year and could not renew his license during that time, the officer that stopped Furman impounded the vehicle. The city charged Furman a $2500 fine to recover the vehicle (it has since gone up to over $4000 with storage fees).

Furman cannot afford to pay the $4000 fees. What’s more, according to information that I have not yet been able to verify, two judges have dismissed the charge of driving without a license, because Furman possessed a license and insurance and current laws allow a grace period for returning servicemen whose licenses have expired while overseas.

But the city of Denver refuses to waive the impound and storage fees!

In a nutshell, US citizens cannot drive a car without a valid driver’s license and proof of insurance. Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, can be stopped repeatedly and released. And now that the people have spoken in an attempt to curtail this problem, instead of pursuing the illegal immigrants who have violated our laws and drive illegally, they instead take a hard line against US servicemen returning from war.

Did you ever believe that the Democrats supported our troops?

*UPDATE* I have heard it confirmed AGAIN that 1) Furman WAS in fact covered by federal law that gave him a grace period to get the license renewed, and 2) Judges DID in fact dismiss the charges against Furman, and 3) the city refused to return the vehicle and waive the fees!
In other words, as they say in Venezuela: "You're innocent, but you're still our prisoner!"

I urge Denver residents to demand that Furman's car be returned, the fees waived, and the city should apologize to the man.
Next, they need to edit the law so that no US citizen who has a license--even if it's expired within 60 days, as long as they have insurance on the vehicle--should have their car impounded. That was NOT the intent of the law.

*UPDATE 2* This morning on the Peter Boyles radio program it was revealed that certain city employees (the Safety Supervisor, I think was his title) had spread false rumors about Furman, saying that the military police had come to pick up the kid and other airmen in the car with him, insinuating that they were in trouble on base. Boyles confronted the city employee on the air and trapped him in his lie. It was GREAT radio.
Following that episode, Mayor Hickenlooper came on the radio and cleared everything up. The car will be released to Airman Furman. There is only a $400 fine that has to be paid. Boyles challenged the mayor to help pay it for the airman: Boyles will pay $200, and Hickenlooper will pay the other $200.
Kudos to Peter Boyles for his bulldog insistence on this issue, and to the mayor, who finally "manned-up" and ended this ridiculous saga.

The Global Trend Toward Fascist Restriction of Speech

Imagine for a moment a world in which individuals who do not believe that the Holocaust occurred are jailed for publicly stating that belief. Well, that doesn’t take much imagination; this can actually happen in Europe, where laws in some EU nations prohibit individuals from denying the historical basis for the claims of systematic mass-murder against the Jews.

So, imagine now a world in which it is forbidden to deny that global warming is caused by human activity, and could be penalized—even jailed—for daring to speak out against the anthropogenic theory of climate change. That could never happen, right? I mean, that’s the kind of thing that happened to heretics during the inquisition, but surely that would never be done by open-minded, secular governments.

Well, think again.

We have all been witness to the recent, systematic discrimination and disenfranchisement of scientists who have begun to rethink the current global-warming dogma. Former Vice-President Al Gore has repeatedly denigrated these scientists as “Flat-Earthers”, as described in an article by James Murray:

“In an interview with Lesley Stahl to air on "60 Minutes"…, Gore piously declares those who don't buy his climate change theories are akin to crackpots who believe the earth is flat and don't believe man landed on the moon in 1969.”

At subsequent events, Gore maneuvered to deny access to these heretics, in order to avoid embarrassing disagreements over the accepted liberal environmental canon.

The Global-Warming hysteria is reaching the point at which proponents believe that their cause will “save the world”, and therefore, anyone who opposes them must threaten the world, and should therefore be treated like criminals, almost as terrorists. James Nash, writing for Environment, said:

“The British foreign secretary ‘has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media,’ Doctors for Disaster Preparedness report in their January newsletter. George Monbiot wrote in England’s “Guardian” that ‘Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.’”

Read that again, and consider very carefully the wording: skeptics should be treated like terrorists and their access to the media should be blocked! In Britain, Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to the government, went on record as saying that, "Global warming is worse than terrorism."

How ironic that global warming skeptics are to be treated “as terrorists”, since the liberals are perfectly willing to invest time trying to sympathize with the real terrorists, in order to understand what we did wrong to make the terrorists hate us, but won’t think for one moment why some scientists are skeptical about the anthropogenic causes of global warming!

But the excesses do not stop there. Brendan O’Neill, in his article “Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech”, writes:

“The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.”

According to O’Neill, one Australian columnist proposed outlawing the public expression of “climate change denial”.

Ian Murray, in his analysis of the behavior of the environmental inquisitors, quotes the Times' economics editor having described the fervor of the environmentalists pushing these policies as being similar to "the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. For a Government to enshrine such thinking in policy is truly perverse." He continues: “In equally medieval fashion, adherents of the environmentalist religion have launched an inquisition against scientific views that they consider heretical.”

The trend for secular governments to adopt a popularly held belief and penalize opponents appears to be growing. Muslim nations have managed to convince the United Nations that the world is suffering from Islamophobia, and are pushing for the criminalization of any speech they believe “offends Islam.” A simple cartoon by Jyllands-Posten of Prophet Muhammad triggered violent reactions by Muslims around the world. So what is the natural reaction among “freedom loving” nations in the UN? Ban any criticism of Islam. No such support for Catholicism will be forthcoming, allowing artists like Andres Serrano to continue display more “Piss Christ” creations. Perhaps, if Catholics burnt a few art museums and murdered the artists, they would get the same sympathy the Muslims do.

And now the UN “torture envoy” has declared that the United States must prosecute the Bush administration lawyers whose only “crime” was to offer legal advice that certain “enhanced interrogation” techniques were legal.

“Manfred Nowak, who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the U.N. Convention against Torture to prosecute U.S. Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimize it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was legal. …‘That's exactly what I call complicity or participation’ to torture as defined by the convention, Nowak said at a news conference. ‘At that time, every reasonable person would know that waterboarding, for instance, is torture.’”

The most recent example of the chilling effect these attitudes have on open and reasonable debate can be found in Andrew C. McCarthy’s letter to Attorney General Holder, in which he rejects the invitation to participate in the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy. “The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls ‘individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.’ “

Why?

“Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people.”

More importantly, McCarthy explains that the current administration’s openness to prosecution of Bush-era lawyers who advised the President about the legality of using “enhanced interrogation techniques” on the al Qaida detainees in Guantanamo Bay prison:
“Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.”

Western values are at risk of being subverted by ecstatic fervor of liberals who are so convinced of their own moral certitude, they are willing to silence any discussion on the topics, punish lawyers who provide legal opinions that differ from their own (which is not a crime, by the way), and treat the skeptics worse than terrorists.

***UPDATE***
As if to prove my point, the English Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said "she decided to publicize the list of 16 people banned since October to show the type of behavior Britain will not tolerate..."

Number three on that list is conservative talk-show host Michael Savage.

Savage responded reasonably: "She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?...It's interesting to me that here I am a talk show host, who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values – borders, language, culture – who is now on a list banned in England," Savage said. "What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me."

Why did Smith do this? In an interview with the BBC, Smith said Savage, the No. 3-rated radio host in the U.S., is "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
We again see that the "progressives" are willing to ban free speech if it might make certain "communities" uncomfortable. And YET they don't ban the "free speech" of Muslims who call for the destruction of Western civilization and repeatedly call for Jihad!

We need to update the dictionary, and add "cowards" as a synonim for "progressives".