stop_the_aclu.jpgIn America, every person arrested for violating the law is considered innocent until proven guilty. Each person also has the right to remain silent and to have an attorney appointed to them if they cannot afford one.

But, what if your already an attorney, assuming your the kind of attorney familiar with criminal law? And, what if your breaking federal law, the same federal law that you had worked for years to resist as a defender of the accused? What if you willingly acted to thwart, or ignore, that law for your own personal interest? What if you were a former president of a chapter of the ACLU, an organization that dreams, and works, among other unsavory things, for virtually no control of pornography availability and consumption? Pornography of any kind.

I suspect a great deal of minimizing and overlooking the gross details of this case will take place. I would add shame and embarrassment, but i’m not sure that’s part of the lexicon of, just so you know, a group of lawyers founded by communists. No hyperbole here, communists.
Here’s their pornography policy:

Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?

The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.

I’m not going to overplay the blindingly obvious here. The man was arrested after an international investigation caught him downloading the worst kind of child porn, pre-pubescent girls, some tied down, subjected to forcible, violent rape. The next step in severity is to kill the victim.

What I’m waiting for are the psychoanalysts and victimologists to invent a defense. Don’t be surprised.

“Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors”. Yes, that seems to be the problem here.

I’m not kidding.

Another ill-advised ACLU muscling out of religious freedoms. Thanks Kathy



I’m pleased to see 60 Canadian scientists implore their government to withhold billions in tax dollars allocated to implement the Kyoto protocols. Their research shows that, knowing what we do now about Co2 and other “greenhouse gas” emissions, signing on to Kyoto’s regulations weren’t necessary in the first place. The estimated temerature change of 0.0015 degree celcius and a cost of 150 billion dollars relegates this failed boondoggle to the ash heap of history, or so you would think.

Insisting the Canadian government revisit shaky claims of anthropogenic, catastrophric global warming and reel in environmental knee-jerk restrictions caused by junk-science, the group hopes that a sounder platform be constructed of actual, provable scientific investigation and not merely guestimations akin to the previous global scare of an impending ice age, which failed the test of time.

Imagine your whole world view of a condition ending with the literal drowning of billions of people being surmised and solidified by viewing a cartoonish docu-drama produced by a politician whose goal is to become president of the United States, and who wrote a book highlighting the need for the banning of the gasoline combustion engine. Think this guy might want to exaggerate the dark side? Uh, yeah.

The new “green” president would then propose, and see through a willing Congress, environmental strongman legislation and executive signing statements directing massive government intervention into the everyday lives of citizens and Orwellian abuses unlike America has ever seen, all in the name of the “common good” and salvation of mankind.

No way, you say? Has anything the UN supported EVER been good for the US or any free people on this earth? Absolutely not.

I implore any other scientific body to petition their respective governments, insisting federal funds be withheld until REAL science can be applied to this issue. No more pandering to leftists worldwide, itching for control of money and power to implement far reaching, draconian regulation created to thwart commerce and destroy personal freedoms.

In typical, capitalist fashion, odd for a leftist, Dion also had this to say about the MONEY MAKING aspects of climate change exploitation.

Excellent resource for exposing global warming chicanery.

Another global warming exaggeration.

newrorschach-x.gif coxandforkum.com

flagusa.gif They say perception is reality. I suppose that cover’s it, for the most part. But, why do you think there are such widely diverse and contrary understandings of the exact same set of facts? Frequently in conversation, I’m baffled to hear recounted something I’d said, the substance of which was unrecognizable to my memory. I’ve learned most people don’t truly hear what you say, but rather remember how they FELT about what you said. I should include myself as having made that mistake, as well. Do you ever get the message that when using words such as patriotism, liberal, conservative, faith, that people hold private definitions which often make honestly communicating impossible?

Chronic concern for the feeling’s of others often leads to deceitful negotiation of differences. Who can speak honestly if the emotional reaction of others are at all times stifling, contorting, and preventing a frank, candid discussion? Political correctness is a weapon of denial, deceit and manipulation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I’m not saying blurt out your perception of the truth, feeling’s and consequences be damned. Adult’s learn to make the view’s known without being a clod or unneccessarily harsh. After all, not everyone agrees on just what patriotism is…

I am saying that if you, at first, measure your responses because you pre-determine the other person hold’s fragile position’s and may not be able to handle the truth, you will always stop short of expressing your true views.

I realize this can be endless…pre-conceived notions, raw bigotry, willful ignorance. However, don’t you wonder where the people who see America as the evil, greedy opressive terrorist nation that needs an attitude adjustment learned this point of view? Weren’t they here with us enjoying the same personal freedom, opportunity and rule of law? Weren’t they eating the same food, enjoying the same entertainment, have the same heroes? Doesn’t a sense of gratefulness and patriotism accompany the benefits and advantages we all share?

Apparently not.

The usual socialism vs. capitalism stuff often needs simplifying. Give it a go. Thanks Charles


Have you ever wondered how an actual Imam, with authority over the very thoughts, actions and attitudes of fellow muslims, would answer actual questions from the “flock’? Do you think you might gain valuable insight from reading questions and answers for everyday living regarding muslims? Well, your in business. I’ve provided a link to just one of many “Ask the Imam” types websites, which field questions from mundane, minor theological matters to terrorism, treatment of women and finance.
Just pick a topic, and enjoy. http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php

If your reading this, your probably not muslim, and wouldn’t have a clue where the nearest mosque or madrassa was in your neighborhood. Now, with a few keystrokes, you can locate everything from Islamic houses of worship to the most convenient middle eastern grocery store. Never be without a first hand knowledge of muslim centers of religion and commerce in your town again. http://www.islamicfinder.org/cityPrayer.php?country=usa

One continual complaint of Islamic leaders, that tend to be vocal about the need for an active fight against the enemies of Islam, is that Western authorities trot out former muslims to do their bidding, and that they shape, bend and twist “true Islam”. Well, the people behind this website are just that, former Iranian worshippers, who now wish to expose true Islam for what it is, and what it has always been. Hint: the penalty for converting from Islam to anything else is death, no Q&A, period. These folks are committed. http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/holding_islam_to_account.html

Finally, a static resource I rely upon, among many, is this website which has many layers and works to provide depth of understanding about Islam, not just from a religious perspective, but culturally, politically and with an eye toward presenting reams of information in a reader friendly style.


Newsweek, 1975, insists politicians, reluctant to thrust the nation into massive, life altering measures at great expense, were reticent and irresponsible for ignoring the “grim reality” of the coming GLOBAL ICE AGE.

Simple mistake? Only too human miscalculations? Hardly.

The same crowd that brought us death and destruction by overpopulation, starvation, resource depletion, pollution and the ice age now shift the current end of the world scenario to global warming, with melting glaciers, catastrophic floods, massive hurricanes and deserts where none existed before.

Do you see a pattern here?

Info update: Here is the timeline for climate changes and much more

You’ll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you’re at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University’s Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world’s foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming “hoax” makes him an outcast.

“They’ve been brainwashing us for 20 years,” Gray says. “Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.”

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

“Climatologists,” reads the piece, “are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. … The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we’d be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn’t enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted “over and over” again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

“Quite frankly,” says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), “I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren’t just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard.”

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard – and heard and heard. His documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

“Let’s just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing,” Gray says. “It’s about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I’ve been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching.”

Gray acknowledges that we’ve had some warming the past 30 years. “I don’t question that,” he explains. “And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle ’40s to the middle ’70s.”

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

“Plenty of young people tell me they don’t believe it,” he says. “But they won’t touch this at all. If they’re smart, they’ll say: ‘I’m going to let this run its course.’ It’s a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way.”

So next time you’re with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell ’em you’re not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You’ll probably be called a fascist.

Don’t worry, you’re not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

David Harsanyi’s column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.


Anna Nicole Smith left this world last week. For the life of me, I wasn’t able to find a word of her accomplishment’s while she was here. Nothing. Nada. She gave birth to two children, one who preceded her, and another who’ll never know her. She partied hearty at every opportunity and, by all accounts, was very popular with the men.

But, despite her voluptuous physique, great looks and good time personality, something rings hollow about the way she lived, and died. I’m not sure why we’ve devolved as a society, other than to say most changes in life happen incrementally, often painlessly until one day it hits you. When did the habit of thrusting wealth and greatness on those who do little more than play at life, and why do characters like Anna Nicole warrant such intense focus and coverage, and so little scrutiny?

Here’s an article by Jane Chastain over at Worldnetdaily about Anna Nicole and the US House of Representatives. As far as I know, none of these officials are the father of Anna Nicoles’ baby.


The nation’s senators have spent weeks debating a resolution to condemn President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. Lawmakers in the House of Representatives now are spending a week on the same useless activity. This could best be described as the “Anna Nicole Resolution.” It is a sexy piece of legislation that has no real meaning, like the life of the infamous gold-digger centerfold, who died last week an untimely death.

What a spectacle! What a waste of airtime and newsprint!

Congressional resolutions have no force of law. Most resolutions are for things like expressing condolences or to praise the work of an organization or civic leader. These things are rarely mentioned by the news media and are completed in a perfunctory fashion. It’s a pleasant little diversion for our lawmakers that takes up little time and does no harm.

This is not the case with the Iraq resolution, which empowers our enemies, undermines our military leaders and destroys the morale of the men and women we have sent into harm’s way.

This display on the floor of the House of Representatives is a lot like those endless shots of Anna Nicole faking kisses and striking near obscene poses for the camera. It’s all for show. When the lights dimmed, Anna didn’t feel loved, just empty. That is why she sought comfort in drugs.

As our congressmen strut around this week, I can’t help but believe they feel empty, too. If Anna Nicole had a worthwhile plan for her life, it wasn’t known. If those congressional leaders have a worthwhile plan for Iraq, it isn’t known, either.

While Anna Nicole was constantly trying to reinvent herself in order to be relevant, so are those congressmen and senators who were criticizing the president for not sending more troops to Iraq, who now are criticizing him for doing just that.

This debate over a meaningless resolution is proof positive that the nation’s lawmakers have too much time on their hands. After this spectacle, we should demand that legislative sessions be cut in half, along with our legislators’ pensions and salaries. Let them go back home and do some meaningful work like the citizen legislators in days of old! Those men spent their time between sessions plowing fields and mucking stalls. Most of today’s legislators are well suited to that last task. They certainly have shoveled enough manure in Washington!

What was Anna Nicole looking for? Fame and fortune, even though the former was for all the wrong reasons. What are those pushing the Iraq resolution looking for? Fame and fortune. For our legislators, it’s all wrapped up in the next election. Democrats and a few wimpy Republicans simply cannot imagine what their lives would be like if they lost the next election. They could not imagine having to get a real job again or being out of the political spotlight. They have read the opinion polls and they are running scared.

Yes, they know that the people being polled often say what they think will make them look good to the polltaker. If all they hear on the nightly news is what is going wrong in Iraq and negative attacks on the president’s plan to put more troops there, the polls reflect that.

The big pot of gold in the next election is under the rainbow that ends at the doorstep of the White House. If we win in Iraq – by that I mean that the country has a stable, democratically elected government that is not only willing but able to defeat insurgents – Bush and his Republican supporters will get the credit.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Democrats could be part of the solution but, instead, they are betting their political futures on our defeat in Iraq. Of course the only way that can happen is if we turn tail and run. We are still, by the grace of God, the most powerful country on earth. The only thing we need to win in Iraq is the political will to do so.

Yes, these bleeding-heart liberals, who are always trying to make us believe that they care about those who are downtrodden and oppressed, are willing to leave the people that we rescued from a brutal dictator vulnerable to the next strongman.

At least poor, misguided Anna Nicole was more honest than that about what she was doing and why she was doing it.


Does anyone reading this imagine for a minute that Al wasn’t going to grace the nation with another offer to lead America out of it’s difficulties and into a brave, new world of worship of Mother Earth, among other seriously objectionable things?

I didn’t think so.

Wasn’t the point of the chicken little version of the end of the world docu-drama all about establishing Al as a concerned, wise voice that deserves to be President?

I think so, too.


Rumors continue to swirl about whether or not former Vice President Al Gore will enter the race for the presidency in 2008. According to an article today in the New York Observer, Gore wants to keep the buzz going about whether or not he’ll enter the Democrats’ crowded fray because delaying a decision helps him if he runs for president.

Steve Kornacki writes that according to the latest rumors, Gore will consider entering the race for the Democratic nomination in September “if an opening presents itself.” The former vice president’s spokesperson issued a classic “non-denial denial,” about Gore’s plans, and Kornacki says that there are multiple reasons for Gore to hold off on entering the race.

First, he can bank on his name reputation getting stronger in the intervening months as he continues to promote his message on controlling global warming. Meanwhile, Kornacki writes, he can “steer clear of any early skirmishes between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, instead allowing the three front-runners to drive each other’s negatives up.”

The moment Gore is looking for, he adds, is one in which the race becomes about Senator Hillary Clinton. The likely scenario for Gore to become a candidate is one in which he is “convinced that he could quickly and bloodlessly push [Obama and Edwards] aside, setting up a Hillary-versus-Al contest for the nomination.”

But there are also reasons Gore might not choose to enter the race. If Obama or Edwards make gains against Clinton, Kornacki writes that he may not want to further crowd the fray. He also must fear “the risk of being branded, for all of history, as a two-time loser.” But, Kornacki concludes, Gore has wanted to be president most of his life, and so he wonders “Can he resist?”

The full article can be read at the New York Observer’s website.

UPDATE: Al’s going to host a concert series on the order of Liveaid. Gotta have Hollywood on board for the run to Prez!

Next Page »