Pictured above is the beautiful mansion of wealthy Florida real estate developer Alan Ginsburg. Mr. Ginsburg held a $500-minimum-donation-per-head fundraiser at his palace for Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), where 150 deep-pocketed Democrat supporters and Vice President Joe Biden were in attendance (does Biden do any actual work, or is raising money his actual work ? It seems like he's always at fundraisers).

I hear the food was absolutely fabulous. The guests dined on "caprese crostini with oven-dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbread with grapes honey and gorgonzola cheese and bacon deviled eggs, before a lunch of grilled chicken Caesar and garden vegetable wraps". Yummy.

I wonder if the theme of this opulent Democrat evening was 'the GOP is the party of the rich' ?

With so many shakers and movers gathered in one place, the Orlando Sentinel sent one of it's pool reporters, Scott Powers, to cover the event. But what Powers found out upon arriving at the gala was, VP Biden's aides didn't want any lowly press maggot mixing with the monied Democrat royalty. So Biden's aides locked the reporter in a storage closet (pictured below) for hours, and posted a guard there to prevent him from leaving.

He was told he could only come out when the politicians were ready to give their speeches.

The event was being held for Democrat senator Bill Nelson. Powers emailed from inside the closet: 'sounds like a nice party'

Powers told The Drudge Report: ‘When I'd stick my head out, they'd say, “Not yet. We'll let you know when you can come out.”’

After 90 minutes he was allowed out to hear Biden and Nelson speak for 35 minutes, before being taken back to the closet for the remainder of the event.

From inside his temporary prison Powers emailed his office from his cell phone: ‘Sounds like a nice party.’

Yet one more example of the "most transparent administration in history", as President Obama said of the Obama/Biden White House.

A spokesperson for Biden has now issued an apology for the kidnapping of the reporter, and the apology is actually worse than the initial "mistake". Listen to this:

An aide to Vice President Joe Biden has apologised to a reporter who was locked in a closet for hours after he was invited to cover a Florida political fundraiser because they did not want him talking with the guests.

Spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander said the decision to hold local reporter Scott Powers there was a 'mistake'. And she claimed an inexperienced staffer had put Powers in the closet instead of a 'hotel room' as was their normal practice.

So, Biden's "normal practice" is to lock the press away in a hotel room, but because there obviously weren't any hotel rooms at Ginsburg's private mansion, locking the press away in a storage closet had to suffice. I'm glad we cleared that up. The Biden spokesperson's key point is – the press has to be locked up somewhere, by god, but it shouldn't be in a place TOO nasty. The Bidens want to be compassionate jailers. Do you think maybe Team Biden is missing the entire concept behind freedom of the press ?

In related news, "The White House on Wednesday urged the Libyan government to refrain from harassing or using violence against journalists. Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the United States is firm in its belief that journalists should be protected and allowed to do their work".

Yes, journalists should be free to do their work…in Libya. In Florida, not so much.

I don't really want to write about this subject, but the media has been obsessed with it for days, so I guess I should. If you have been near a tv news program, you already know there has been some ugly language directed toward members of Congress, there have been a few instances of vandalism (broken windows) at Democratic party headquarters around the nation, and a bullet hit the window of Republican Eric Cantor's campaign headquarters.

Naturally, we all condemn this type of behavior. Democrats and Republicans both condemn it. Certainly, every member of Congress condemns it. That should go without saying, but because it appears more of the bad behavior is coming from right-wingers than from left-wingers (this time), the media and Democrats have to pretend like this is somehow representative of the entire conservative movement. The left-wingers have to pretend Republican speech is responsible for it, or the entire Tea Party movement is responsible for it, or Fox News is responsible for it, or talk radio is responsible for it. Instead of calling it what it is, a few fringe nuts acting up, which exists all across the political spectrum, we have to pretend that conservative speech is somehow inciting people to violence, and it is a huge powderkeg about to explode.

I have to note, the same narrative NEVER seems to exist when left-wingers are engaging in vandalism, violence, threats, and ugly speech. For example, at the recent G20 summit in Pittsburgh, left-wing anarchists and other left-wing protesters smashed store windows, threw bottles at the police, set trash cans on fire, etc, but you NEVER heard the media warn about the dangers of left-wing violence. You never heard anyone tell the left to tone down THEIR rhetoric, and you never heard Republicans in Congress tell Democrats to get their people under control, as Democrats are telling Republicans now. In fact, you probably didn't even know the anarchists are left-wingers, because the media never told you. As another example, when the previous President, Republican George W. Bush, was hung in effigy, had a film and a book released about assassinating him, had Air America running skits about assassinating him, and even had the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, talk about killing him, you NEVER heard any warnings about left-wing extremism from the mainstream media. Evidently, that kind of left-wing incitement to violence isn't worth reporting. It doesn't fit the mainstream media narrative. But when left-wing nuts like Janeane Garofalo or Keith Olbermann call the Tea Party movement racist, the media laps it up and repeats it ad nauseum.

Unfortunately, threats against public officials is nothing new. They are always despicable and cowardly acts, and far more common than we know, because usually, the public officials don't make them public. Such acts should be condemned whether they are coming from the left, the right, or the center. They should not be exploited to fan the flames of partisan anger, which will only raise the possibility of more threats and/or increasing violence. Republican Eric Cantor talked about those who would fan the flames, and said it best in the following video:

Even more unfortunately, I don't have to look very far to find someone who will fan the flames of partisan anger. My blogger pal, the Reverend at the Blog Of Mass Destruction, wrote about the recent threats and vandalism on his blog. The Reverend has a way of starting out with a valid point and then taking off on an extreme tangent into sheer insanity. The linked blog piece was no exception. He attempted to falsely characterize words by Republicans Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and John Boehner as calls to violence, when in reality they were nothing but calls for conservative political action. The Reverend ended his hysterical rant by saying everyone on Fox News (except Shep Smith) and the conservative radio talkers should be charged with crimes. CRIMES. I guess their crime is what most of us would call freedom of speech. I can't help but feel a little sorry for the Reverend, who is sounding more and more like Hugo Chavez as time goes on. Chavez just arrested the owner of a television station in Venezuela because the owner criticized Chavez' government. This is how the Reverend thinks we should treat conservatives in America. He thinks we should arrest them for their political opinions. Pitiful. Like most crazy people, the Reverend is unable to recognize his own craziness.

The official proclamation from the media is that President Obama is a moderate now, after word came from the White House that Obama will propose a three-year federal spending freeze in tonight's State Of The Union address. The official proclamation claims that the President got the message from the Massachusetts senatorial election, and now he's taking bold steps to deal with our disastrous deficit/debt problem, the one thing certain to destroy the economic future of this country.

Let's scrutinize the official proclamation for accuracy.

1. Obama's spending freeze would only cut non-defense discretionary spending. This is the small part of the federal budget, representing only about 20% of federal spending. It excludes nearly all the major expenditures, such as Social Security, Medicare, other entitlements, and defense. Over ten years, the White House says this spending freeze would save $250 billion, but the White House isn't proposing a ten-year freeze, it's proposing a three-year freeze, from 2011 through 2013. Estimated savings – about $15 billion per year for three years. To put this in perspective, the deficit for FY2009 was $1.5 TRILLION. The estimated deficit for FY2010 is $1.35 TRILLION. Obama's spending freeze is like taking a drop of water out of a bucket-full, it's so minor. If this is an example of Obama being a moderate, we're in trouble.

2. Obama already INCREASED non-defense discretionary spending by about $100 billion during his first year in office. In FY2009, President Bush's last budget, that spending was $589 billion. Obama jumped it to $687 billion for FY2010, and he did it during a recessionary period of no inflation. That's not moderate either. That's standard liberal big government policy.

3. Prior to announcing the three-year spending freeze, Obama had already submitted budgets to Congress for the next three years. Those budgets had called for REDUCTIONS in non-defense discretionary spending after FY 2010. As Alex Conant explains:

In the budget proposal that President Obama submitted to Congress last year, his budget office already projected actual cuts and freezes in “non-defense” discretionary spending for the next three years. That’s in part because of the huge increase in that area of spending that the President requested (and received) for the current fiscal year. To be specific: FY2009 (President Bush’s last budget) had $589 billion in non-defense discretionary spending. That number jumped to $687 billion in FY2010 (Obama’s first budget), and then drops to $641 billion in FY2011, $622 billion in FY2012 and $625 billion in FY2013. So for the White House to now boast that it will freeze non-defense discretionary spending is hardly news. If anything, it’s backtracking on its earlier plans to actually cut that area of spending.

By my math, if Obama freezes spending at the FY2010 level, he will actually be spending $173 billion more than his own previous budget proposals called for. Still sound moderate ???

4. Also excluded from Obama's spending freeze will be the rest of his stimulus package (which has now swelled from $787 billion to $862 billion, according to the CBO), the massive spending of ObamaCare if it passes (at least a trillion over ten years and most likely WAY more), and a second stimulus package that is being contemplated ($174 billion). I don't see anything moderate there either.

There's nothing at all moderate about Barack Obama. Those who say there is are playing their typical game of 'Let's Pretend.'

Still, this spending freeze that isn't…this drop in the bucket…this $15 billion pretend spending cut amidst trillions in defcits and massive federal spending and entitlement increases….has liberals in an uproar. As the Nobel-prize winning Princeton professor, NY Times columnist, and alleged economist, Paul Krugman, said of the imaginary spending freeze, "this is appalling on every level." President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, actually had the audacity (of a dope) to refer to Obama's move as "fiscal austerity." These guys REALLY like to play 'Let's Pretend.' There has been nothing austere about Obama's fiscal policies to date. Nothing. The reactions of Krugman and Rubin are typical of the liberals, er, I mean progressives. You see, progressives have two fiscal scenarios:

1) During lean economic times like this, they advocate massive government spending and tax increases (like Obama's bank tax, health care taxes, carbon tax, etc, etc).

2) By contrast, during flush economic times, they advocate…um….massive government spending and tax increases.

See the difference ? I don't, but somehow progressives do. They must call them progressives because they progressively take away your income, progressively take away your liberty, progressively take away your rights, and progressively ruin America. I can't think of any other reason to call them progressives on the fiscal front.

Far from being a moderate, Obama is the biggest liberal to ever hold the office of President, by far. His little kabuki theater of fiscal responsibility shouldn't fool anyone.

P.S. – Speaking of progressives taking away your rights, I see the progressive anti-free speech crusade is continuing. They are still trying to stop groups from airing ads on television. This time they are trying to censor Tim Tebow's mother. They don't like her Super Bowl ad, where she says she's glad she didn't listen to the doctors who recommended she abort the future Heisman trophy winner. Progressives know we can't have any crazy talk like that floating around, with mothers going around saying they're glad they had their babies and stuff. With this brilliant move, progressives have now placed themselves solidly in the anti-life, anti-free speech camp. You couldn't make this stuff up, nobody would believe it. They are not only against freedom of speech now, they are against human beings as well.

But first…last night at the Q…Cavaliers 93, Lakers 87. Yes !!! That's two wins in a row over the defending NBA champion Lakers, and the Cavs did it without all-star point guard Mo Williams, who is out with a shoulder injury. Lebron rules, throwing down 37 points along with 9 assists. Get well, Mojo. Go Cavs ! (Box score)
=====================================================

The Supreme Court made a ruling yesterday on a major free speech case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Here are the facts of the case, as described by The CATO Institute:

Citizens United, a nonprofit political advocacy group, produced a film called "Hillary: The Movie" about the current Secretary of State, who at the time was a presidential candidate. The movie did not reflect well on Ms. Clinton but did not explicitly advocate her defeat in the 2008 presidential contest. Citizens United planned to show the film in theatres, sell it as a DVD, and make it available on-demand on cable TV. The group also planned to run ads marketing the movie.

In a free country with freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in reading the above it seems obvious that Citizens United should have the free speech right to produce, air, advertise, and distribute their film. After all, we don't ban films, books, etc. in this country, do we ? We especially don't ban films, books, etc. that contain political speech, because free political speech is what the First Amendment is there to protect.

So, Citizens United aired and advertised their film in this free country with free speech rights, no problem at all. That has to be correct, right ???

Nope. Incorrect. It was illegal for Citizens United to air their film in the United States at the time Citizens United wanted to air it. Here's the reason, from the same CATO Institute article:

Citizens United knew, however, that distributing the movie—or even running ads for it!—was illegal under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform." That is, part of McCain-Feingold prohibited advertising about candidates funded by corporations or labor unions during primaries and general elections.

But Citizens United is a corporation—that it's a nonprofit doesn't matter—Hillary Clinton was a candidate, and the movie most definitely discussed the merits of her candidacy. Showing the movie and even advertising it would thus be illegal unless the courts invalided the relevant section of McCain-Feingold as a violation of the First Amendment (as the Supreme Court already has with several other parts of the law).

Clearly, parts of McCain-Feingold infringed upon the free exercise of political speech. This isn't a new thing, however. There is a reason for it, and here it is:

The courts have long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption (or the appearance of corruption) in elections. Contributors to campaigns might buy favors from candidates once they are in office, for example, so contribution limits are supposed to deter such exchanges.

Limits on campaign contributions from corporations were designed to prevent corporations (or other large groups, such as unions) from "buying" elections and corrupting the political process. Advocates of McCain-Feingold might say, 'yes, we infringe upon free speech, but we do it for a good cause.' If a regular person like you or I can afford to donate $100 to a political campaign, while the Mega-Bucks Corporation can donate $5 million, guess who is going to get influence with that politician ? As they say, money talks.

That's the case that went before the Supreme Court.

An important point here is, Citizens United wasn't making political contributions to any campaign. They just wanted to advertise and air their film. Should they, as a corporation, have that right, even though the film contained political content ? I say, of course they should have the right. After all, other corporations are free to air political content 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, with no restrictions whatsover. We call them newspapers, television stations, radio stations, etc. Why should only media corporations be entitled to uninfringed free political speech ? What makes them special ? It's also obvious that different media corporations contain different biases. Compare Fox News to MS-NBC, for example. Vastly different. In addition, some media corporations are owned by non-media corporations. NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric, so you could say GE has unfettered rights to political speech, while other corporations like Citizens United do not. How can that possibly be considered fair or right ? It's an extremely unlevel playing field, saying THIS corporation has free speech rights, while THAT corporation does not.

Further, is it even the province of the government to create a level playing field for political speech or for political contributions ? In doing so, the government would by definition limit political speech, our most important civil right. Free speech with accompanying government regulation of political speech is a contradiction in terms. It invalidates the First Amendment.

Another aspect of McCain-Feingold to consider is this – corporations and other organized groups still donate massive amounts of cash to political campaigns, about $1 billion in the last election cycle. They just don't do it directly. They get around McCain-Feingold restrictions through PAC's, 501's, etc.

Faced with this decision, the Supreme Court ruled correctly in favor of free speech, but amazingly, it was only a 5-4 decision. The liberal wing of the court (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Sotomayor) all ruled against free speech, against Citizens United being able to air and advertise their film. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy said "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech." It doesn't get much clearer than that, but the liberal wing of the court voted instead for censorship. They voted, in essence, to ban books. Unbelievable. In the dissenting opinion, Justic Stevens wrote the following:

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 daysbefore the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether CitizensUnited had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided.

Stevens' opinion, in short, is complete horsecrap. It isn't free speech if the government dictates when you can exercise it. To hold with Stevens, we'd also have to take MS-NBC and Fox News off the air for 30 days before the election. The NY Times would have to stop publishing political stories for 30 days before the election. No newspaper could endorse a candidate. Basically everyone in the media would have to shut up about politics during the most important political days we have, if Stevens' rationale was accepted and equally applied.

An important distinction here is that the Supreme Court only struck down the McCain-Feingold limits on independent expenditures (such as Citizens United's film). They did not strike down limits on campaign contributions, even though many media outlets are reporting it as if they had.

Read the Supreme Court opinion here.

Earlier this week, I posted about the White House Enemies List, which consists mainly of Fox News and conservative talk radio. I assume ABC's Jake Tapper is also now on that list for daring to question the Great And Powerful Oz-bama team about bashing any media that isn't in Oz-bama's back pocket.

In that earlier post, my major complaint with Oz-bama's selective media bashing was this:

What really gets my goat about this is that Team Obama doesn't mind one bit when the media furiously spins things in Obama's favor. Everything the White House is saying about Fox News is true in reverse about MSNBC, who ceaselessly bashes the right, but no complaints from the administration about MSNBC's opinion journalism. No sir. They're perfectly fine with that. The White House is alright with opinion journalism when it represents the opinion of the White House.

Now it has come to light that not only is Oz-bama perfectly fine with HIS opinion journalists operating on news stations, he even calls them in for, let me make sure I quote this correctly, "two-and-a-half-hour off-the-record chats" to tell them what to say:

On Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one from Fox News was in the room.

Here's the full list of opinion journalist attendees at Oz-bama's "chat."

The White House has sent TVNewser the complete list of those who attended the off-the-record briefing Monday: Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne, Ron Brownstein, John Dickerson, Rachel Maddow, Frank Rich, Jerry Seib, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann, Bob Herbert, Gloria Borger, and Gwen Ifill. Several members of the staff also attended.

The hypocrisy of the White House is off the charts. Notice that Oz-bama's off-the-record briefing with liberal opinion journalists came ONE DAY after Oz-bama's apparatchiks made the rounds demonizing Fox News on the sunday political talk shows. Team Oz-bama is so tuned in to MSNBC (the official White House news network), that it even e-mails corrections to MSNBC while it's talking heads are on-air. Un-be-liev-able. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck has been asking daily on his program for the White House to call and correct any errors Beck might be making. So far, nada.

On the heels of his "chat" with liberal opinion journalists, Oz-bama had this to say in an NBC exclusive interview, when asked if it was appropriate for the White House to determine what is or isn't a news organization:

"we are going to take media as it comes, and if media is operating basically as a talk radio format, that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

Sorry, Mr. President. That simply isn't credible. The man behind the curtain has been exposed. The President doesn't send out his flying monkeys to demonize one news outlet and then have two-and-a-half-hour meetings with friendly opinion media unless it's part of a media control strategy. If the prez wasn't losing sleep over Fox News, he could have spent that two-and-a-half-hours in more productive fashion…like, say, coming up with a strategy for the Afghanistan War or fixing the economy.

To prove further how much the White House DOESN'T "take the media as it comes," as if any further proof is needed, the White House tried to exclude Fox News from this week's interview with the Pay Czar, until the rest of the media objected. Even Oz-bama's media pals are objecting to his exclusionary tactics now, knowing what an outrageous and horrible precedent this would set:

Team Oz-bama. Creepier and creepier. Let's click our heels together three times and say "there's no place like America," where freedom of the press is considered a Constitutional right. I don't like this strange new land of Oz.

I've pretty much had my fill of liberals condemning free speech, and then using the specters of racism and/or violent right-wing boogeymen as the excuse. In my last three posts, I have outlined examples of the left calling the right racist. It's the number one argument they use to discount the Tea Party protests. That argument was shot down by President Obama himself on Meet The Press on sunday:

DAVID GREGORY: …this week you had former President Jimmy Carter saying most, not just a little, but most of this Republican opposition against you is motivated by racism. Do you agree with that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now. But I think you actually put your finger on what this argument's really about. And it's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?

The President is absolutely correct. The argument here is about the role of government, not race. The President pointed out that the argument about the government's role goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson versus Alexander Hamilton, and that it always evokes passionate debate. Nothing has changed. Our President is apparently much more intelligent than many of his clueless supporters, who play the race card at the drop of a hat. Kudos to President Obama for saying this.

After the racism charge, the number two free speech stopper used by the left is the politics of fear (which I seem to remember the left condemning not too long ago, ironically enough), in the form of those right-wing boogeymen I mentioned earlier. Apparently, liberals think there are cadres of right-wing nutjobs sitting in front of tv sets and radios all across the country, with their helmets on, armed with hand guns, hand grenades, and Billy Beer, just waiting for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck to give them their marching orders about who or what to go blow up. We saw Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) playing the politics of fear card recently, when she weepily worried about potential violence in front of the cameras. The latest version of this inanity I've read came from the blissfully ignorant Media Matters (aka, George Soros Media Inc.), who had a profound enough lack of self-awareness to write a piece called 'A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this'. That President was John F. Kennedy, of course, and, as much as I hate to pierce Media Matters' bubble of historical revisionism, JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a self-avowed communist. The last I heard, communism was a left-wing ideology. It wasn't "right-wing hatred" that killed JFK. It was left-wing hatred. Not that Media Matters let's the truth get in the way of a good old phony political diatribe.

I can point out ten acts of left-wing violence for every act of right-wing violence over the last several decades, and left-wing governments killed approximately 100 million people in the 20th century alone, (yet somehow liberals NEVER profess a fear of left-wing violence), but liberals do have a real right-wing boogeyman to whom they can point. That is Timothy McVeigh, the man who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in the 1990's, killing 168 people. Heinous. He received the death penalty, which he richly deserved.

McVeigh was an anti-tax, anti-big government Libertarian who voted for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the 1996 Presidential election. That makes McVeigh sound a lot like……ME. I voted for Harry Browne, and I agree with many Libertarian ideas. In light of McVeigh's violence, the question is, does that make the ideas themselves dangerous ??? Should I stop writing what I do because some nut might misinterpret it ? Should I self-censor my political rhetoric ? Liberals have been answering "YES" to that question for months now. They see a bunch of peaceful Tea Party protests (zero examples of right-wing violence) as some kind of powder keg, ready to explode. Liberal accuse the Tea Partiers of fear-mongering even as liberals fear-monger themselves. It's absurd, and we should all be able to see right through it.

Here are a couple things Timothy McVeigh said that I agree with (horrors ! You better arrest me NOW):

"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight"

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful."

Dangerous ideas ? I think not. The Founding Fathers held those ideas, and they are ideas about liberty. I think the dangerous people are the ones who don't object to the ever-growing government, which has the inevitable crushing effect of taking away ever more property and choice (freedom) from the citizenry. McVeigh's gigantic mistake was moving into calls for civil war and violence. Naturally, I don't agree with that. I'm all for using peaceful means, as Martin Luther King advocated. You don't defeat tyranny by becoming a tyrant yourself. In America, we can defeat tyranny at the ballot box.

What McVeigh does represent is what I'll call The Lunatic Factor. We have a country of over 300 million people. Because human nature is fallible, some of those people are bound to be unhinged (I should name names here, but I'll resist). These people might listen to political speech and be motivated to do stupid and destructive things, as McVeigh did. What liberals seem not to understand is, this can manifest itself across the political spectrum. Liberals quake in their boots over largely imaginary right-wing violence, but then they turn around and call right-wingers racists, which is about as inflammatory as political rhetoric can get. If so-called "dangerous" speech is to be controlled, as liberals are advocating, then we can start with the liberals themselves. By labeling all the Tea Party protesters as racists, are not liberals, by their own standards, inciting violence against those alleged "racists" ? After all, racists are dangeous people who must be stopped. If Limbaugh and Beck are inciting violence, so are Olbermann, Garofalo, Maxine Waters, Jimmy Carter, etc.

It's one more liberal example of "do as I say, not as I do." The lack of self-awareness is nothing short of astounding. Are liberals incapable of remembering all the way back to LAST YEAR, when they were calling former President Bush all manners of inflammatory names ? For that matter, they still are calling Bush those names.

The bottom line here is, free speech is allowed in this country. We can't ever allow that to be lost. The people we should always cast a skeptical eye upon are the ones who are attempting to stifle it with their scare tactics. At this moment in history, the stiflers in this country are coming from the left. That also happens to be where the stiflers most often come from – from the big, all-powerful totalitarian governments the left is constantly advocating for (knowingly or not). The belief in freedom is not just an ideological exercise. The real world consequences are immense.

Upon taking office, President Obama vowed to "restore science to it's rightful place."

Enter John Holdren, whom Barack Obama recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Holdren's informal title is Science Czar (and as you shall see shortly, "Czar" is definitely the correct description for Holdren).

The following ideas come from the 1977 book Ecoscience, co-authored by Holdren, and illustrate what our radical new Science Czar thinks is the "rightful place" of science. Passages from this book read like the fiction from Huxley's Brave New World, or the ravings of a tyrranical lunatic. According to this book, Holdren is a totalitarian, a eugenicist, and an environmental extremist. What he proposes is simply beyond belief. Here are some direct quotes from Holdren's book:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

Hmmm. I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution that would allow the government to mandate forced birth control or forced abortions. I wonder who "concluded" that ?

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Forced marriage, forced adoption. Holdren isn't quite up to speed on the ideas of liberty or freedom of expression, is he ? I'm pretty sure the Constitution DOES say something about those concepts.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Sterilize the population via drinking water, as long as it doesn't harm the livestock. Sure, Mr. Holdren. Was it Thomas Jefferson who first spoke those inspiring words, or was it Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg Address ? I can never remember.

a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
…
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Maybe they can combine the sterilization implant with the National ID implant chip. The totalitarian two-fer. I'm glad Holdren left open the possibility that some of us peons MIGHT be able to have children with the permission of the government. Of thee I sing.

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

I wonder how the government will determine which people are causing "social deterioration" ???? Eugenics, anyone ? Btw, the government is already trying to require us to "exercise responsibility" in our "resource-consumption patterns," in case anyone was wondering if this type of stuff could ever really happen.

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

One worlders unite !!! I don't know why Holdren mentioned the Constitution in that previous passage from his book, because he clearly could care less about it. He wants to throw it out the window in favor of a planetary governing body. Holdren doesn't recognize any limitations on the power of the state. At least we won't have to worry about maintaining the integrity of sovereign nations any longer, because there won't be any sovereign nations. It's Big Brother gone global. What could possibly go wrong ?

If such things are science's "rightful place," well, I'd rather go back to where it was before. What kind of lunacy are we ushering into being here ? Where is America going ? The former fringe radicals are taking the seats of power, and that is truly frightening. What's next, Bill Ayers as the Education Czar ? It wouldn't be much different. We have to stop these people.

Rabid lunatic left-wing bloggers have been casting the blame for the killings of three Pennsylvania police officers by Richard Poplawski right where the blame lies – on Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck. When I first heard about this, I thought it was some kind of sick joke, for the following reasons….

Did Beck tell Poplawski to go kill cops ? No.
Did Beck tell anyone to go kill cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against anyone ? No.

But lunatics are undaunted by facts. That's what makes them lunatics. Lunatics act in irrational ways. That's why the lunatic Poplawski murdered three police officers in Pennsylvania, and that's why the lunatic left-wing bloggers think it's Glenn Beck's fault. Here is why the loony left thinks Beck is to blame – one of Poplawski's neighbors said Poplawski was afraid President Obama would take away his guns, Glenn Beck interviewed NRA head Wayne LaPierre about the Obama assault weapon ban/Mexican drug cartels, and Poplawski allegedly saw Beck's program about alleged FEMA internment camps. That's pretty much the loony left's entire case against Beck. The loons say Beck is "inciting violence" (normal people would say Beck is engaging in "free speech").

I wouldn't even be reporting this spew from the lunatic bloggers, because I could care less about their hate-filled nonsense, but the lunatic fringe blogger spew has spilled over into the lunatic fringe mainstream media, namely the Countdown With Keith Olbermann program on MSLSD, er, I mean, MSNBC. Last night, Olbermann named Beck one of his 'worst persons in the world,' and declared that Beck was inciting violence and shared the blame for Poplawski's actions (FYI – Olbermann is obsessed with Fox News, who clobbers Olbermann and MSLSD in the cable news ratings. One or another Fox News host is almost ALWAYS one of Olby's 'worst persons.' It's incredibly transparent and self-serving on Olby's part).

For the sake of argument, let's suspend disbelief and pretend the lunatic left spew has enough credibility to be addressed. I'll address it here:

On Obama banning guns - Obama DOES want to ban assault weapons, just as Beck said on his program. There are also several pieces of gun restriction legislation in Congress at this moment, as I reported myself in a blog article I called 'Democrats And The Second Amendment.' (I guess that makes ME responsible for the cop killings too). Obama's own attorney general, Eric Holder, has said he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment allows private citizens to bear arms. If the lunatic left wants to know where people get the idea that Obama and the Democrats want to take away their guns, I suggest the lunatic left take a look at OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

On Beck interviewing NRA head Wayne LaPierre - It's called the First Amendment, loony left. Get used to it. This is the USA, not Soviet Russia. And there was NO incitement to violence by Beck. That exists only in the fevered imaginations of the loons.

On Beck talking about FEMA internment camps - Beck is DEBUNKING the story about the FEMA camps, you lefty blogger morons. Beck is investigating the claims and finding them to be FALSE. Beck says the government is NOT intending to put Americans in internment camps.
—-
Beyond the absurd notion that Beck is somehow responsible for the actions of a crazed cop killer, let's take a look at the galactic hypocrisy in which the lunatic left is engaging. These people have the gall to say right-wingers are inciting violence after the lunatic left has engaged in the following (to name only a few examples out of a multitude):

- Called Bush an international criminal, racist, fascist, terrorist, murdering thug for the last 8 years. If somebody assassinated Bush after listening to the loony left, would the loony left be responsible ???

- Openly advocated violence against AIG employees and their families. This wasn't only the loony bloggers. Even House Financial Services head Barney Frank (D-MA) threatened to publish the names and addresses of AIG employees unless they returned their bonuses, so the mob could find them. President Obama himself said Americans should be outraged at AIG. Obama also told the bankers, "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." An ACORN group led bus tours to the homes of AIG employees, so the mob would know where they lived. If somebody killed bankers or AIG employees, would the loony left, the Democrats, and the President be responsible ?

- Left wing Air America radio ran audios of the simulated shooting of president Bush on more than one occasion. Luckily, since only three people listened to Air America, nobody heard the implied threats against the president. When Glenn Beck does something like THAT, then I'll listen to your complaints, haters.

- Obama's left wing buddy Bill Ayers bombed buildings as a member of the Weathermen.

- Left wing groups like Code Pink routinesly disrupt proceedings, such as the Republican National Convention, sessions of Congress, etc. Left wingers routinely shout down and attack conservative speakers at college campuses and at their homes. Left wing groups like PETA throw blood all over people wearing fur. Left wing environmental groups routinely spike trees, resulting in the maiming and death of lumberjacks. Left wing groups like Al Sharpton's National Action Network have incited riots against store owners, resulting in murder. And if we REALLY want to talk about fomenting violence, the leftist philosophy of Karl Marx was responsible for about 120 million people being killed in the 20th century.

I could give you scores more examples. If the stupid moonbats want to go on a witchhunt looking for people who incite hatred and foment violence, I suggest they go look in the damned mirror.