No Free Speech For Students On The Web

UPDATE:

Apparently the student in question attempted to publicly apologize to the principal for the comments, but the principal wasn't adult enough to accept.


While I await Blogger's response to the template problems I figured I might as well still keep the site somewhat updated. The following story should never have gotten so far as to be discussed, because it is nothing short of ludicrous.

This story conjures up memories of the school that banned their students from going to Myspace ... while at home. Yep, you heard me. A school banned their students from any Myspace activity at school, or at home. The truly sad part is how some parents supported the school being able to tell their kids what they could, and could not, do in their own homes. That was clearly an abuse of authority on the school's part, and severely crossed the line.

As hard as it might be to believe, I think this latest story goes even further in illustrating just how far schools will go to seize control of your children. Especially when your kids are not at school.

AP:

A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn't have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court.

But a lawyer for the Burlington, Conn., school told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that administrators should be allowed to act if such comments are made on the Web.

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school's annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: "'Jamfest' is canceled due to douchebags in central office," and also referred to an administrator who was "pissed off."

After discovering the blog entry, school officials refused to allow Doninger to run for re-election as class secretary. Doninger won anyway with write-in votes, but was not allowed to serve.

Since when is speaking your mind a disqualification to run for public office? I don't know how many student elections these administrators have witnessed, but every one I've seen has always had students complaining about the administration, and advocating fighting for student's rights to face down the school faculty. At the end of the day ... a school should not be allowed to punish a student for comments made off school campus. The only exception would be threats of violence. Can you imagine your kid coming home with detention and an RPC because they called the principal a douche the night before at the dinner table? This is no different, and to make matters worse the school has found support in the equally corrupt courts.

A lower federal court had supported the school. U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz, denying Doninger's request for an injunction, said he believed she could be punished for writing in a blog because the blog addressed school issues and was likely to be read by other students.

Her lawyer, Jon L. Schoenhorn, told the appeals court Tuesday that what students write on the Internet should not give schools more cause to regulate off-campus speech.

We don't even punish our own politicians for what they write on blogs, and many of their postings (i.e. Murtha) are traitorous at best. Yet we do not punish them for making traitorous statements that are proven to be lies, but we'll punish a kid for exercising her first amendment right?

What Do Muslims, Denmark, and Wikipedia Have In Common

A couple of days ago I answered the call to show jihadis that we honor freedom of speech by reprinting the Muhammad cartoons. There is still more rioting in Denmark now as a result of the cartoons.

It turns out that Denmark, and western publications, aren't the only victims of the jihadi effort to censor all references to the prophet Muhammad. Wikipedia also needs our support because they are under fire to remove all images of Muhammad ... to the tune of 180,000 complaints.

Guardian:

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopedia, though not on Arabic sites.

We have pulled out all the stops to defend the publications that had the courage to publish the cartoons, and now we have to stand up for Wikipedia.

Remember The Cop Who Put The 14 Year Old Kid In A Headlock? Yeah, His Spotless Record Is Not So Spotless.

I've been watching a bunch of idiots defending this officer because the kid was "mouthing off."  No ... the kid was asking legitimate questions that officers should be required to answer, and in some states are required to do so.  In any case, it is unnacceptable for an officer to man handle anyone that way, especially a minor, unless they are a threat.  

One of the arguments used by the nitwits to defend officer Rivieri is that he has a spotless record. Well, someone else has come forward with a year old video of the officer in question pushing him around as well.  I encourage you to watch it here.

Apparently officer Rivieri has one hell of a temper, and likes picking on anyone who doesn't walk in a strait line while having eyes forward.  Does that sound like any other historical police forces to any of you?

Sheriff Deputy Who Threw Cripple Onto Floor Wants Your Sympathy

What an f---ing bitch!  

If you don't know what's been happening with the two recent police videos ... I wrote about them here, but here is an interview with the victim that plays the assault over and over again. Sorry about the cheesy production stuff.


Now here is today's article on the matter, and the deputy playing the victim.

As outrage spread nationwide over a Hillsborough County jail inmate being tossed from his wheelchair onto the floor, the detention deputy at the center of the controversy has been getting nonstop phone calls, many racist in nature.

"It's not even just in Florida," said Beverly Crecy, the roommate of suspended Deputy Charlette Marshall-Jones.

"These calls are from out of state," she said, with tears in her eyes. "People calling her 'n---' and 'fat' and all kinds of stuff. Seven o'clock in the morning and all through the night."

Uh, she brought it upon herself. So don't give me this boo-hoo crap.

I have no idea if her assault was racially motivated, but I would like to point out that there were 4 black people standing around while one of them threw this white guy on the floor. Shortly after it happened a white coworker came into the camera's view. This is not evidence of a hate crime, but white supremacists will use this as evidence of such. Hence the n-word calls.  Plus, she is fat.

FEMA Will "Relocate" Katrina Victims Instead Of Kicking Them Out On The Street Like They Deserve

I'm getting sick and tired of coddling these "victims." Katrina was a tragedy, and no one is denying that. However, it was a tragedy that happened in August of 2005 ... two and a half years ago! Not only should every one of these people be back in the work force, and at a bare minimum renting apartments of their own, but there is countless cases of fraud being committed by these "victims." It is not them but us, the taxpayer, who are the real victims here.

The reason there is formaldehyde in these trailers is because they are not meant to be lived in for extended periods of time. Everyone involved knows this and has chosen to ignore it in an effort to sacrifice themselves, and their children's health so they don't have to work. Then they can sue the government for more money. This is a classic case of sacrificing longevity for wealth and comfort.

FEMA is not off the hook here either. They are so worried about the public's negative perception of them that they are refusing to do what is right. Which would be to revoke all benefits Katrina victims are currently receiving, and forcing them to return to society by kicking them out of the trailers. This is a two-fold benefit. Not only will they be forced to become productive members of society again, but their health will improve because they are out of those temporary stay trailers. I've written about the trailer issue before.

Here's the latest assault on your emotions by the MSM.

Authorities say they will step up efforts to move hurricane victims out of more than 35,000 trailers now that tests indicate possibly high levels of formaldehyde contamination.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator David Paulison made the announcement Thursday.

The Centers for Disease Control has said fumes from 519 tested trailer and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi were on average about five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes.

In some trailers, the levels were more than 50 times the customary exposure levels, raising fears that residents could contract respiratory problems.

FEMA -- which supplied the trailers -- should move people out quickly, with priority given to families with children, elderly people or anyone with asthma or other chronic conditions, said Mike McGeehin, director of a CDC division that focuses on environmental hazards.

"We do not want people exposed to this for very much longer," McGeehin said.

I agree that they should be moved. I just think they should be moved out onto the street. Two and a half years is more than enough time to pull your life together, and the proof is in the majority who actually have. The few that remain behind are nothing but leeches upon society who think they deserve welfare for the rest of their lives because Katrina got their feet wet. Perhaps the toxins in the trailers were sent by mother nature to make sure the weak are weeded out.

The Obligatory "Police Officer Beats Up Skateboarder" Post

Bottom line is this officer was WAY out of line, and broke the law. Where's HIS respect for his badge and department?

The officer is in trouble, but is claiming that he didn't know he was being recorded. Because his actions would somehow be justified if he weren't recorded. He's also lying. He knew damn well he was being recorded by the kid. At the end of the video he asks if he's being recorded, and says he "better not see himself on You ..." I'm assuming You ... is YouTube.

Hotair has more.

Then there is the police officer who dumped a quadriplegic on the floor out of his wheelchair. Bad day for cops I guess.

Terrorists Make Threats At US Air Force Academy ... Media Chastised For Misreporting

Some former terrorists were speaking at the academy to give insights on the life and thoughts of Muslim terrorists so the cadets can better understand the enemy. Well, it turns out that some real terrorists showed up.

MMD:

Former terrorists Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani addressed cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, during their annual political forum. They shared their experiences as terrorists and helped cadets understand the Islamic fundamentalist mind set.

During the event a Jordanian college student, identified as Omar Khalifa of Metro International, approached Kamal Saleem and spoke to him in Arabic, "you are an enemy of Islam and you must die." The incident was reported to Military Police, who investigated Khalifa's threat.

"The men receive threats of this nature all of time and we take each one very seriously," said Keith Davies, Executive Director of the Shoebat Foundation. "That is why each of the men live in seclusion."

As if the story wasn't juicy enough, this next little tidbit makes it swim in gravy. Not only is the article critical of the MSM's lack of accurate reporting on the matter, but it flat out accuses them of taking marching orders from unindicted co-conspirators CAIR.

Numerous media outlets (New York Times, the Associated Press, The Colorado Springs Gazette, the Rocky Mountain News) did not report on the former terrorists' message, but instead focused on the [inaccurate] media statements distributed by CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations), in an all-out campaign to discredit the speakers credentials and background.

"We have all been told that Islam has been hijacked by extremists,” said Walid Shoebat. "Yet CAIR, who professes to be ‘Moderate Muslims’ are the Three Ex Terrorists biggest critics, and pull out all stops to try and keep out voices from being heard. I beg to ask the question; if CAIR is indeed moderate as they claim, then WHY are they not supporting our campaign against 'extremists? If they are sincerely against the Fundamentalist Muslim agenda why do they appose us?"

According to the Air Force Academy's public affairs office CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, contacted them numerous times criticizing the scheduling of the three men, and requesting an opportunity to have a CAIR representative share with cadets information about the Islamic faith. The Academy informed Hooper that the event was not about religion, but about terrorism, and he denied CAIR's request.

Wait a minute. Did I just read that the Air Force Academy has a CAIR spokesman in their public affairs office? WHAT THE HELL!

For a group that professes to be vehemently anti-terrorist, CAIR sure does put a lot of effort into defending terrorists.

Teacher Molests Three Girls ... Only Gets 90 Days

I have long been saying that our children will rebel against us one day because we have flat out refused to protect them. Why would they take care of us when we are old and decrepit if we didn't take care of them? The biggest failure of society to protect our children is to allow sexual predators to go free with little to no punishment.

I have lost all faith in judges to adequately punish child predators. Many have said that judges refuse to punish these predators because the judges themselves are predators. Perhaps these people are right. Maybe NAMBLA membership is chalk full of judges, and they are looking out for their own. After all, that is what secret societies do.

Nevada is widely recognized as having a horrific judicial system ... especially when it comes to protecting kids. Frankly, it would take too long to explain, but you locals know what I'm talking about.

A couple of days ago Don Smith, a former music teacher at Tate Elementary, was sentenced to 90 days behind bars for touching the breasts of a little girl in his class who was under 14 years old. Now I should preface this by saying that this comes from Channel 13 News' website, and they are notorious for not giving you details.

A former Clark County school teacher will spend 90 days behind bars for touching a student's breasts.

A judge also sentenced Don Smith to up to four years probation and extensive counseling.

The sentence is part of a plea deal Smith agreed to in December.

Smith was teaching music at Tate Elementary School.

His attorney said he was just counseling the girl, but the prosecutors say he touched her inappropriately and on purpose.

Smith was warned several times over the years by the Clark County School District not to hug students.

They also have a video on their website.

You'll notice that the school district had to "warn" Smith several times over the YEARS to not touch the children. Just so you know ... the Clark County School District is one of the worst in the country. No that's not opinion ... it's a proven fact year after year.

If you have to warn a teacher to stop hugging children several times over the years, but he continues to do it, why wasn't he removed from the classroom. Clearly, if you are repeatedly told to not touch children yet you continue to do so ... you have a compulsion. It is blatantly obvious that Smith could not control his actions, but the district and school didn't act to remove him from the classroom. Therefore, I hold them responsible, and I hope the victim's family does as well.

Remember, Channel 13 doesn't give good details on their website. So I went back to the local newspaper to review the case, and found extremely disturbing information. Smith didn't accept a plea for touching one student's breasts ... it was three students he violated.

Review Journal:

A Tate Elementary School music teacher accused of molesting three students told a judge Tuesday that he intends to accept a plea deal in District Court.

Don Kevin Smith is expected to make an Alford plea to one count of attempted lewdness with a minor under 14, which carries a potential prison sentence of two to 20 years.

An Alford plea does not involve an admission of guilt but acknowledges that prosecutors could prove their case if it went to trial.

So the plea deal he received holds a sentence of 2-20 years. Why did he get only 90 days? Even if the charge is probational as expressed by the paper ... the judge has an obligation to give a sexual predator more than 90 days for violating 3 girls.

It gets better:

According to his arrest report, Smith admitted to investigators that he touched the breasts of three students.

He originally was charged with two counts of lewdness with a minor under 14.

Prosecutor Lisa Luzaich said she agreed to drop the other charges in exchange for his plea to attempted lewdness because it keeps open the possibility of Smith receiving as much as two decades in prison and it also would ensure that Smith receives a felony on his record and never teaches again.

"If I can do all that without making three young girls testify than that's a good thing," she said.

This is when I got really pissed talking about this on my show.

The prosecutor did the right thing by guaranteeing a felony charge while not requiring the three victims to relive the assaults. The reason the prosecutor even accepted the plea is because Smith would face a tougher sentence than with the other charges. So the prosecutor positioned herself to get a guaranteed conviction with a stiffer sentence for the child predator than she may have gotten with a trial. That's good lawyering, and she should be commended with her efforts.

Unfortunately, her plan backfired on her when Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo decided that the 2 year minimum for Smith's plea deal was too harsh, and only sentenced him to 90 days behind bars.

To summarize:

• We have a teacher who admitted to molesting not one, not two, but three elementary school girls.
• The prosecutor only accepted the plea deal because the predator would receive a felony with 2-20 years in prison.
• The judge felt two years was too harsh for a child predator who assaulted a minimum of three young girls, and gave him a mere 90 days with probation and counseling.

Now that's justice.

U.S. & Iranian Navy Clash - Update: Video Added

This is still developing so we may get new information as time goes on.

Five Iranian boats threatened US warships, and said they were going to blow our ships up. The US Navy had just received the order to fire when the Iranians broke off their "attack."

Fox:

Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats took threatening actions toward three U.S. Navy ships sailing in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, FOX News has confirmed.

The U.S. ships — a cruiser, a frigate and a destroyer — were passing through the strait en route to the Persian Gulf when they took defensive action to avoid striking the close by Iranian ships and armed their weapons, but neither side fired any shots.

The small Iranian boats reportedly came within 200 yards of the U.S. ships, and also threw boxes into the water ahead of the U.S. boats before speeding off. It could not immediately be determined what was in the boxes.

The Associated Press, citing an anonymous Pentagon official, said the incident occurred at about 5 a.m. local time Sunday.

"Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing our ships to take evasive maneuvers," the Pentagon official said.

"There were no injuries but there very well could have been," he said, adding that the Iranian boats turned away "literally at the very moment that U.S. forced were preparing to open fire" in self defense.

The AP source said he didn't have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but the Iranians radioed something to the effect that "we're coming at you and you'll explode in a couple minutes."

I recently responded to a list making its way around the internet on the top 10 things Americans want. I made my own list of the REAL things Americans want, and both addressed the Iranian situation. I pointed out that the ball was in Iran's court. I wonder if the Revolutionary Guard commander will get another medal for this endeavor like he did when they illegally kidnapped the British sailors last year.

The Government Wants Seniors To Come Out Of Retirement, & Work Off Their Tax Debt.

This is one of the most twisted stories circulating right now. The disgust will be compounded by the attitude of the article's author towards seniors losing their well deserved retirement.

AP:

The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for $7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.

"People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," said Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.

He envisions retired doctors mentoring schoolchildren, retired accountants helping with the town's finances, retired lawyers offering their services for a discount. But there are plenty of less-skilled jobs that need doing, he said.

Some of the "less-skilled" jobs just happen to be manual labor in some of the other states with programs like this.

You'll notice the tone of the article is one of compassion for seniors who are overburdened by their taxes. That tone is prevalent throughout the whole article, and is an attempt to seem compassionate for the poor seniors. Did anyone else catch the fact that they are only looking to pay the seniors $7 an hour. Isn't that less than minimum wage?

Naturally, several seniors were featured who thought the idea was a good way to pay down their debt. Hell, even the National Council on Aging said it was a good idea. How heartless, and moronic are all of these blithering idiots?

The entire article was how the seniors can't afford to pay the property taxes on the pittance they receive from social security, and therefore must be FORCED out of retirement to pay off the government. NOT ONE TIME was it even considered that the taxes was too damned high to begin with. Nor was it mentioned that it was the very same government charging excessive taxes to the seniors that also decimated those seniors' social security funds which put them in this bind to begin with.

Here's a suggestion to go: reduce the taxes on the seniors, and put a cap on the taxes so that the seniors can afford them with the funds they currently receive from social security. This is tantamount to slave labor. How dare they back seniors into a corner that leaves them with no choice but to come out of retirement and work for less than minimum wage. Seniors have worked their whole lives to be able to retire in peace. Not to forced into indentured servitude.

Music Industry Goes Too Far In Saying Music You Buy Is Not Yours

Figuratively of course.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is saying it is illegal to copy music you've paid for. Problem is ... there is no such law. The record industry is trying to win a precedent case in order to go after millions of people who have transfered their CD's to their MP3 players by saying we've violated copyright law. I disagree.

WaPo:

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

Well slap my ass and call me Suzy! Since when has it been illegal to make a backup of your personal possessions? As long as you aren't distributing the material to others there should be no controversy.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

Any statements on the RIAA's website are irrelevant, and they should face charges for making false statements.

The bottom line is that MY music is MY property. Once I pay for it, it is mine to do with as I wish so long as I don't distribute it. Using the RIAA's logic ... one day it will be illegal for my wife to listen to my MP3's.

Whole Foods: Shoplifters Are Customers Too. Leave Them Alone.

Notice I didn't use quotes in that title. Whole Foods didn't literally say that, but they essentially said that when they fired an employee who stopped a shoplifter in Ann Arbor.

MLive.com:

John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

There are several factors that need to be considered for this man's future lawsuit against Whole Foods. Let's examine the first one here in this paragraph. He was fired for "physically touching a customer." Since when are shoplifters customers? A customer is someone who pays for a good or service. You don't pay ... you aren't a customer.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store.

Point two is that he had clocked out. In other words ... he was not on company time. If he doesn't get paid for that time ... he isn't on the job. Things get sketchy when you fire someone who wasn't on the job.

He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

The third point is that he was assisting the manager (his boss) after being requested to do so. What's the point in chasing someone down, and asking others to help you chase them down if you won't do anything when you catch up to the crook? Now his manager becomes liable for his actions because he requested assistance.

The final point is that this did not happen on Whole Foods property. How can you fire an employee for stopping a shoplifter, while not on the clock, and not on company property?

With this logic, an employee could be fired for stopping a bank robber after work because the bank robber was in Whole Foods earlier that day. I smell a windfall in this man's future.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across Washtenaw Avenue and toward a gas station at the corner of Huron Parkway.

Before the man could cross Huron Parkway, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied, and the shoplifter got away.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.

Again, he didn't touch a customer at all.

So what was Whole Foods' response to the firing?

Kate Klotz, a company spokesperson, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Schultz said he acted as a private citizen on property that isn't owned by Whole Foods, but Klotz said where the incident happened doesn't change the policy.

"He is still considered an employee of Whole Foods Market regardless of where he was and what was happening," she said.

I would love to see the company policy that this man signed when he was hired 5 years ago. Does it really say that shoplifters are customers? I doubt it.

If merely touching the shoplifter was grounds for termination then why even chase him out of the store? Keep in mind that the store's manager gave chase, and asked for assistence which this man provided while on his own time.

As for the Whole Foods rep saying that he is considered a Whole Foods employee "regardless of where he was and what was happening" is ludicrous, and the worst kind of stupid. I refer you to my argument above about him preventing a bank robber from getting away because he was in Whole Foods earlier that day.

Schultz is right on by saying he acted as a private citizen on his own time while not on company property. He is given the right to make a citizen's arrest by the Constitution. Whole Foods has no authority to remove Schultz's constitutional protections.

What would you expect from a store run by a bunch of hippies. Physical violence won't be tolerated ... even in self defense of the store's bottom line.

Peace, Love and Masturbation!

Why Do Unions Hate The Handicapped?

Once again I am forced to burden you with the knowledge that unions will use the helplessness of others to advance their causes. This time it isn't teachers refusing to give final exams to high school students, who need them for college applications, in order to increase their pay. I'm afraid this is far more distasteful, and the victims are those who most need our assistance ... those with disabilities.

NY Times:

A 10-day strike that inconvenienced about 9,000 wheelchair users and other people with disabilities who depend on Access-a-Ride, a government-financed van service, ended on Wednesday when members of Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union voted to ratify a contract settlement.

About 1,500 drivers and mechanics began their strike on Dec. 10, shutting down operations at Atlantic Paratrans, Maggie’s Paratransit, MV Transportation and Transit Facility Management. The companies operate about half of the approximately 20,500 rides provided on an average weekday under the paratransit program, which runs door-to-door van service for eligible residents.

There is nothing like using the handicapped as pawns in your contract negociations ... well played, scumbags.

Yet Another Example Of A Hate Crime Being Called "Not A Hate Crime"

I know it is getting pretty old hearing about these events, but it is necessary for you to understand that there a very clear double standard in regards to hate crimes. Apparently, whites and Jews can not be the victims of hate crimes.

Haaretz:

The Zionist Organization of America condemned the U.S. government's Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday for failing to protect Jewish students it says have been subject to a series of anti-Semitic provocations on the campus of the University of California, Irvine.

The ZOA alleged that Muslim students on campus have given anti-Semitic speeches, distributed Judeophobic literature, and used intimidation tactics against Jewish students. The university's failure to take disciplinary action constitutes discrimination against Jewish students, the ZOA charges.

The Office of Civil Rights, which operates under the auspices of the Department of Education, said in a report released last week that some Muslim student activities were offensive to Jewish students.

But the report concludes the speeches, marches and other activities were based on opposition to Israeli policies, not the national origin of Jewish students.

So what types of "other activities" were disregarded you ask.

"A Holocaust memorial was destroyed; that swastikas repeatedly defaced property on the campus; that a rock was thrown at a Jewish student; and that other Jewish students were harassed and verbally threatened with such statements as 'slaughter the Jews,' 'dirty Jew,' 'go back to Russia,' 'burn in hell,' and 'f_ _king Jew,'"

Yeah, dirty Jew is only opposition to Israeli policies ... RIIIGHT!

Note the school is UC Irvine, a school with a long history of radical Muslims who support murder. LGF has made a habit of documenting the extremists on UC Irvine's campus ... check it out here.

CNN Says White Ron Paul Supporter Not "Diverse" Enough To Ask Questions At Debate

Yeah I know ... the CNN debates are over. This is true, but while the planted questioners are worthy of discussing for the remainder of the election ... there is one story that has not been heard by the country. Truth is, this story is actually far WORSE than the Democrat plants at both the Republican and Democrat CNN debates. Why? It shows the hypocrisy of CNN to allow Democrats to ask Republicans questions while not allowing the reverse. This story also shows exactly how racist CNN really is in the name of "diversity."

It all got started in the lead up to the CNN Democrat debate here in Las Vegas, NV. A College of Southern Nevada environmental class wanted to ask the Democrat candidates about alternative fuels. The class is called "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming." The question submitted by the class was chosen as a question to ask the Democrat candidates, but there was a problem. Terrell Potter, 21, was to be the student to ask the question, but CNN didn't like that.

Review Journal:

CNN had chosen a question sent in by a College of Southern Nevada environmental class. The students in the class "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming" posed an alternative energy question that the network found suitable. But it didn't find student Terrell Potter, 21, to be the right messenger.

Potter said he is a registered Democrat who voluntarily told CNN he had donated to the presidential campaign of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Was he sunk merely because of the donation, or because that while he is a student of biodiversity, he is just too caucasian for prime time? What if Mr. Potter happened to be black? Would CNN have overlooked the donation? What if the donation had come from his mother?

Now the article is written by Erin Neff, a typically distasteful opinion writer who hates Republicans and often is caught lying, or at best not checking her facts. However, she is dead on in this piece. She makes all the right connections, and it is well worth the read.

Because it was Erin Neff writing the piece I had to get independent corroboration, and I did indeed find it in a letter to the editor of the Review Journal. The writer? Monica Brett, the Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the College of Southern Nevada, and the professor of Terrell Potter.

Here is her letter on the CNN fiasco involving her students:

My students submitted a question to CNN for consideration at tonight's presidential debate at UNLV. An e-mail came back asking if one of my students would be happy to present this question at the debate. No criteria was listed.

I then told my students to nominate someone. I watched as they put democracy into action. After the selection process was complete, I contacted CNN and they first asked if he was "diverse." I was then told that CNN wanted to represent "diversity." When I mentioned his ethnicity -- he was white -- I was told that there was no "guarantee" he would be called upon.

The next thing I knew, CNN phoned me with an urgent message. "We have a problem," I was told. "Because your student mentioned that he gave money to (GOP presidential candidate Rep.) Ron Paul, we cannot have him ask a question. Nor can we now have any of your students ask. Why did you select him?"

Needless to say, no one at CNN looked at the quality or importance of my students' question. It is an insult to what this country stands for to censor somebody due to what party he currently is "considering" supporting. Can't a Democrat ask a Republican a question -- and vice versa? How else can we make politically informed decisions?

Monica Brett

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.

There is a couple of things we need to consider here.

1. Why is CNN ok with Democrats (including members of Hillary's official campaign) asking Republicans questions, but it's not ok for someone supporting a Republican candidate to ask Democrats questions?
2. Why should Terrell's race have been a factor?
3. Why did CNN then forbid anyone else in the class to ask the question?
4. And why were they so curious as to why the class chose Terrell to ask the question?
5. Finally, if CNN was able to do the proper research, and background check, on Terrell ... how is it that prominent Hillary Clinton personnel always "trick" CNN at all of their debates. They always claim they had no idea that these people were prominent Democrats associated with Hillary. This also raises the question of why non of the Youtubers could be identified for who they really were by CNN when it took bloggers literally no time to do so. Clearly CNN has displayed to ability to conduct the proper background checks with regards to Terrell.

Without a doubt ... CNN should be banned from conducting anymore debates for at least the next two presidential elections.

Islamic Death Threat Posted On YouTube ... YouTube Takes No Action

H/T LGF

The threat is against British councillor Alan Craig who opposes a "mega mosque" that is being planned near the 2012 Olympics.


You can read the full story at the Daily Mail.

YouTube has a history of allowing Islamists to spread their propaganda on their site while making sure that conservative videos, and anti-Islamist material is taken down. Make sure you read this story about how terrorists are using YouTube for recruiting and propaganda.

So if you want conservative videos without dealing with the anti-American and liberal stance at YouTube then check out QubeTV.

ACLU Violates Civil Rights Of Death Row Inmate

That would be his desire for the execution to go forward.

You should know about the debate on executions going on right now, and whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" punishment. If you aren't aware ... it's time to read up.

Start with the José Ernesto Medellín case, and then read the Heliberto Chi case.

Essentially what we have is 51 foreigners , that have been convicted and sentenced to death in the US, may not have their sentences carried out because of the 1963 Vienna Convention. President Bush is also throwing his weight around in the matter, and Texas seems to be standing alone in fighting for their right to execute convicted criminals.

The Vienna Convention states that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. Many of the foreigners (illegals) are arguing that they were not granted access to their country's consular officials. Keep in mind that many have confessed to their crimes of rape and murder.

As a result of these cases we have the ACLU, and other groups opposed to the death penalty, challenging the Constitutionality of lethal injections. Many executions across the country have been halted until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of lethal injections.

Obviously we have several problems with the current situation. State's rights are being violated, this is not a Constitutional issue, and we have international law infringing upon American sovereignty.

The Vienna Convention has no power over internal US affairs, and foreign nationals are NOT permitted under US law access to their consular officials. The US Supreme Court ruled on this very matter last year.

Stating that American law outweighs an international treaty, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that foreign criminals held in state prisons did not have a right to reopen their cases if their rights under the Vienna Convention had been violated.

The 6-3 ruling spares state prison officials a major headache. If the high court had ruled the other way, thousands of state inmates who were not U.S. citizens could have sought to have their convictions reversed.

The international treaty, drafted in 1963, seeks to protect foreigners, including Americans traveling or living abroad. It requires that officials notify the home-country consulate when a foreigner is arrested or held for "pending trial."

Despite its clear terms, police and prosecutors in the United States have failed to notify foreign criminal suspects that they have a right to the help of their nation's consulate.

Two years ago, the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, took up an appeal from the governments of Mexico and Germany. The court, based in The Hague, ruled that the treaty gave individuals a right to reopen their cases if they did not get the proper notification.

But the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was not bound to follow that ruling.

As you can see ... the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, and they ruled that US law trumps an international treaty ... as it should.

Why this case is being reheard is beyond me, but Phyllis Schlafly thinks it has something to do with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Now for the ACLU (NV chapter) violating the rights of a death row inmate.

William Castillo was sentenced to death in 1996 for bludgeoning to death an 84 year old retired teacher as she slept. He then robbed her house, left, returned, and burned it down. He would later confess to the murder, and was sentenced to die this month by lethal injection. We waived his right to appeals, and accepted his fate. Castillo requested that the ACLU and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty not stop his execution, but his request was ignored for pure ideology.

Nancy Hart of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty and Richard Siegel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada said the Pardons Board has the authority to halt Castillo's lethal injection pending a U.S. Supreme Court review of such injections.

Nevada uses the injection method being reviewed by the court, Hart and Siegel wrote, adding that executing Castillo might put the state "in the untenable position of having to explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution before the Supreme Court was able to rule."

"The state of Nevada should not be executing any of its prisoners, 'voluntary' or not, while the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the method violates the Constitution," they wrote.

As you can see, they didn't give a damn about what Castillo wanted. It's even more laughable that the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty asked people to "write to Gov. Jim Gibbons on behalf of William Castillo!" Even though he opposes their stance on capital punishment.

Their assertion that NV uses the same method under review by the US Supreme Court is false. Nevada uses double the formulation strength being challenged in the Supreme Court.

State Corrections Director Howard Skolnik said that Castillo will get double doses of the three drugs normally used in executions. He said that the change ensures that Castillo should "go out instantly" and not experience "any kind of discomfort."

Skolnik also said the double dose makes the Nevada method different than the Kentucky method of lethal injections, which is the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court review.

That means that if the US Supreme Court rules that the Kentucky method of lethal injections is unconstitutional ... it would not apply to Nevada anyway. The Supreme Court has not issued a halt to all executions in the US anyway, and therefore Nevada would not have to "explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution."

Their arguments are insensitive and false, but they worked.

Convicted killer William Castillo was 90 minutes away from death by lethal injection Monday night when the Nevada Supreme Court stepped in and issued a stay to allow more time to consider legal issues raised by the ACLU of Nevada.

Castillo had his final meal, and was sedated already when the order came down. Also, two of the victim's family members had come to town to witness the execution. I doubt the ACLU will reimburse them for the time and cost of their trip.

Something else had already taken place as well. Castillo's mom had said her final goodbye to her son ... only to be called later that he was not executed. You'd think Castillo and his mom would be relieved, right? Well, you'd be wrong.

News 3's Jesse Corona spoke exclusively to Castillo's family and found they are not happy about the execution being halted.

His family says he had already refused any more legal action on his behalf and that he was ready and willing to die.

"Not that I want my son to die, but I had to accept my son's decision," said Castillo's mother.

Mrs. Castillo says her son told her that he would refuse any more appeals filed on his behalf to stop his execution two months ago. She says it was the most difficult thing she's ever had to do but her son told her he wanted to take responsibility for his actions and die like a man, so she agreed to respect his wishes.

"I had to accept this, and these people come along and yank that from us?" she said.

Now I don't have sympathy for Castillo, but I do for his mother. It is impossible to imagine what she is going through. Not only does she discover that her son is a monster, but she had to come to terms with his death. Now she has to get a lawyer and fight for her son's right to be executed.

"When I hung up that phone, my son died. According to the state he was going to die 8:30 but my son died at 7 when I said goodbye," she said.

Castillo had already ate his last meal and taken the pre-execution sedative and was ready to die.

"His first words were, mom this ain't right. Get a lawyer, get someone out there to help us that was not right they had no business being here."

On top of all that ... she says that the ACLU is far more cruel than the methods they are arguing against.

Mrs. Castillo says what the ACLU did to her family was itself cruel and unusual.

She's right, and I hope she sues the hell out of the ACLU.

Mrs. Castillo, like me, is convinced the ACLU's move was a publicity stunt.

Mrs. Castillo also said that she thinks the last minute stay of execution by the ACLU was really a publicity move for the organization, and not about the issues they say it was about. She says if the ACLU's motivations were pure, they would have requested a hearing last week.

Again, she is right. Requesting a hearing the week before would have saved a lot of grief for the Castillo family, and the victim's family. Instead of requesting that hearing, however, the ACLU was polluting every news agency with their rhetoric on the situation.

The ACLU told News 3 Thursday that they have a lot of sympathy for everyone affected by what happened, but they say the issue was not about any one particular individual on death row, but instead was about the constitution.

Oh really?

So Castillo's desire to die after being convicted, and sentenced to death, was about the Constitution? Even though the Constitution gives states the right to enforce capital punishment, and even though the method of execution being used for Castillo is not the method being constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court? Give me a break!

This is further illustration of the ACLU's hypocrisy. Why, you ask. Because the ACLU has long fought for the right to die, and they've used constitutional arguments to support their efforts.

"Each of us should have the right to die in a humane and dignified manner. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director.

That was in 1997.

• In 2001 the ACLU supported the right of Robert Wendland's wife to take him off of life support.
• 2005 showed another case when the ACLU supported the right to die for Harold Folley in New Mexico.

You get the point ... I don't need to go on.

So why is it that the ACLU supports the right to die for some, but not those who were sentenced to death? The answer ... their political agenda. The ACLU has an agenda to get rid of the death penalty, and in their list of priorities that agenda is more important than the right to die or state's rights.

Thus, the American Civil Liberties Union violated the civil liberties of one William Castillo even though they swear they exist only to uphold such civil liberties.

NAACP Says Halloween Display Is Racist, Family Forced To Remove It

Warning: The following post will contain some strong language not usually present in my writing, but I am super pissed about this. I have removed letters of certain words, but felt it was appropriate to warn those of you who are regular readers. I'm usually not this personal or confrontational, but given the past couple of weeks with similar stories an aggressive response was warranted.

Update: I have added a poll at the top right of this site. Let us what you think of the display. Is it racist, or not?


Photo Courtesy Of The Daily Record

So much for the NAACP actually becoming a respectable organization again. I had hope for a while there because they had been settling down a bit. The NAACP "seemed" to be getting away from the Jackson/Sharpton ideology. Oh well, it looks like they are back in full force.

The NAACP, along with a couple of oversensitive neighbors, blew a simple Halloween decoration waaaay out of proportion.

The Star Ledger:

Chesla Flood couldn't believe her eyes. A hangman's noose circled the neck of a black-hooded, jeans-clad dummy suspended from the chimney of a house in Madison.

Flood called her mother, Millie Hazlewood, who reported the Halloween display to police. She wasn't the only one. Police went to the property at least three times starting Sunday, and even the mayor asked the homeowners to take down the figure.

The police took time out of their day to harass a family for Halloween decorations, multiple times? The mayor even requested the family take down the decoration? What in the hell is this world coming to that you can't put a commonly used Halloween display up? I can't count how many times I've seen a hangman's noose as part of Halloween decorations, haunted houses, and even my own decorations. These people are acting like this is the first time this has been done. When, in fact, it's somewhat of a traditional display.

So is this the first time this family has used the noose?

D.J. Maines, the 27-year-old son of Cheryl and David Maines, has bedecked the house for seven Halloweens using $5,000 worth of decorations he has collected. He has used the hanging dummy each year.

Nope. He's used the display for 7 YEARS with no incident! Why no incident? Because it's a common display used by thousands of homes across the US!

Finally, the pressure got the family, and they removed the display because they feared for their safety.

At 8 last night, the family relented, saying they feared for their safety.

"It's no more like freedom of speech anymore," Cheryl Maines said. "My son had to take this down because these people have blown this thing out of proportion."

Hell, it doesn't even really have to do with freedom of speech because it is a Halloween decoration!

Here is what the mayor (a white guy) had to say:

Before the figure was removed yesterday, Madison Mayor Ellwood "Woody" Kerkeslager said "the appearance and the suggestion (of racism) is there, and it's inappropriate."

What? How? They didn't show a black person being hung. They showed a person in a black hood being hung. When we used to hang people in this country guess what we did? We put a black hood over their heads!

Now listen to how everyone is trying to tie this story in with other noose stories in the news lately in an effort to paint this family as racist.

At least four recent noose displays -- one each in Jena, La., and Philadelphia and two in New York City -- are drawing renewed attention to a potent symbol of racism, lynchings and the era of Jim Crow segregation.

Unlike those incidents, the Madison figure was part of a Halloween display, and for two days, homeowners Cheryl and David Maines, the borough's superintendent of public works, refused to budge. They said they had done nothing wrong.

ARE YOU F___ING SERIOUS!?

Credit goes to the author for pointing out the obvious ... this was a decoration, at a home, for Halloween. To draw correlations to Jena, La. is insane at best.

Here's where the NAACP jump in, and make complete fools of themselves.

Meanwhile, the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People denounced the display as offensive, racist and insensitive.

"I think there are many people who understand the significance of a noose as it relates to the history of African-Americans," said James Harris, president of the NAACP's state chapter. "We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display."

"As it relates to the history of African-Americans?" F__K YOU!

There is another population that has a history with the noose James ... COWBOYS! And most cowboys were what? White!

Why don't we just make the argument that the display was inappropriate because it might offend criminals. After all, we used to hang criminals exactly as the display is shown ... black hood and all.

"We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display?" What era are you talking about James? The era when we used to hang people as capital punishment? We HAVE lived beyond that era James. That's why your argument makes no damned sense! We DON'T hang people anymore ... white, black or any other race for that matter. Hence, it was only a Halloween decoration!

The only people who haven't lived past that era is you, James. You and your supporters want old feelings from another time to surface. That way you can foment hate, prove the NAACP is still needed and maybe make a quick buck while you're at it.

To top it all off ... not only are you still living in the past, but you are projecting a falsehood upon this family. You keep talking about racism when there was no part of this display that could be construed as racist by any sane, logical person. So are you fomenting hate James, or are you just lacking sanity and logic?

The family has sworn off holiday decorations for good because of this fiasco. I assume that was the goal all along as there is a concerted effort to remove holiday displays in this country.

Last night, the Maines family said they would be replacing their Halloween display and erecting a sign reading: "Thanks to the assistance of Millie Hazlewood and her friends, Halloween and Christmas decorations will no longer be celebrated here."

This is very sad.

Authorities also said that the display was not illegal, and couldn't be ordered down. If that is the case ... then why did the police harass this family on three separate occasions? I hope the family sues the department for harassment, and I hope they sue the people who complained and the NAACP for violating their civil rights. The mayor should also be a target for lawsuit for his interference.

Read the rest of the article and you'll see a bunch of people who lived through the horrific time where lynching was common, and were offended by the display. The south is featured prominently in the article, but this is taking place in New Jersey so don't be fooled.

The Maines family also responded to those who have a history with lynching.

"Don't bring your ancestors into this -- it's something that happened; you've got to get beyond it or you're going to make yourself sick," she said.

She is right. To bring up history having nothing to do with her or her decorations in an effort to demonize her family is completely uncalled for.

Had the display featured a black person being lynched, I would have supported it being taken down. However, there was no racial undertones at all in the display. This was just another excuse by racists themselves to attack white people.

Here is another picture of the display for you to decide yourself.

The Daily Record

Harry Reid Says Mormons Being Led Down Wrong Path By LDS Leaders

No doubt you haven't heard about Harry Reid attacking Christians last week because the media doesn't dare smear him. However, it is even more unlikely that you've heard about Reid smearing his own church leadership for being right-wingers.

Reid said people often question how he can be a Democrat and a Mormon, but called the social responsibility Democrats espouse a good fit with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He questioned the guidance of some LDS Church leaders, though.

In remarks to the media following his address, Reid said that, "In the past years we've had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people.

"Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path," he said.

Then there is this little tidbit from the AP:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mormons were ill-served by the conservative politics of past church leaders.

Then after insulting past LDS leadership for being to conservative ... Reid politely tells LDS members that their values are all screwed up.

He said Mormons must recognize there are more important issues than abortion and gay marriage. Reid opposes abortion.

"We have a country that needs to do something about health care. Global warming is here. We have a president who doesn't know how to pronounce the words," Reid said, referring to President Bush.

Harry, ever the hypocrite, thinks it is the "wrong path" for LDS leadership to uphold their traditional conservative beliefs, but he deems it ok to alter those beliefs to better coincide with the liberal agenda? For crying out loud ... he told LDS members they should be more concerned with global warming than abortion!

When I spoke of this last night on my show, I received several calls from outraged LDS members who explained how the church goes out of its way to not endorse any candidate. Something that was stated very clearly in the RJ's article.

The church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms. Spokeswoman Kim Farah said church officials would not comment on Reid's remarks.

To attack other faiths is bad enough, but to attack your own.

So You Want To Use Dope, But Not Get Arrested ... Go To San Fransisco!

That's right everybody. San Fransisco has finally decided to move forward with a very controversial plan that will allow intravenous drug users to shoot up without fear of arrest.

Why would they do such a thing you ask. Well, to prevent overdoses of course.

SF Gate:

On Thursday, an all-day symposium - co-hosted by the city Department of Public Health - will examine the idea of creating safe injection centers where users could bring their drugs, shoot up and leave, without fear of arrest.

The idea is to decrease overdoses, keep dirty needles off the street, and cut the risk of spreading HIV and hepatitis C. Those are all good things. It is the idea of providing addicts with their own injection clinic that riles people up.

Naturally, people are riled up over something like this (which has been in the works for years now). The article even quotes one reader as saying:

"What's next? Giving them the drugs, too?"

The answer to that is yes. Now some of you might think I'm going a little too far by saying that, but I want you to use some logic here.

If we are willing to allow dopers to shoot up in an effort to prevent overdoses, remove needles from the street, stop hepatitis and HIV ... surely we will be willing to provide said dope to prevent all of the other crimes involved in buying the dope on the street. Hell, it may even become a proposed strategy for the drug war (yes I know some people have already endorsed this tactic).

Seriously, think about it. The negative impact, and outright danger, to the individual as well as society is far worse if the drugs are purchased on the street instead of being supplied.