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.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, May 4, 2009
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.
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
