I’m a big defender of free speech, including speech that I profoundly disagree with. That said, I think these folks have crossed the line. Look at this skit from Err America’s Randi Rhodes Show, as reported by Drudge.
The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."
This isn’t the first time Rhodes has advocated the murder of George W. Bush. Last year, according to Michelle Malkin, Rhodes did this little number last May.
Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.
In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.
Buh-bye, bitch – we’ll see you in 10-20 years. Such statements about killing the president are a crime.
UPDATE: It seems this is a serious story on which Drudge got the scoop. Even the folks from Err America are investigating Randi.
I’ve written about the plight of Chinese Christians who refuse to join the state controlled churches. They are subject to arrest, torture, and other forms of abuse for exercising the freedom to believe and to worship as they choose. One would think such persecution would be of interest to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sadly, though, it is not.
Not only is it not of interest to that organization, but one of its members, China, recently forced the suppression of testimony about the atrocities it commits against Christians. On April 5, Bob Fu of the China Aid Association, appeared before the group to testify about the case of Cai Zhuohua, a pastor imprisoned for printing Bibles without government permission. Fu noted the use of various instruments of torture, in Chinese prisons. This brought a most disturbing result.
One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices — and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua — is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.
So, it is more serious to offend the government of a repressive dictatorship than it is for that state to engage in the torture of citizens exercising their human rights. How interesting. How pathetic. And they wonder why so many of us do not recognize the legitimacy of the UN any longer.
Some folks want a big church wedding. Others would prefer something more low key, such as getting married by a judge at the County Building. But it appears that there is even a “no frills” way of getting married that eliminates all the ceremony – a wedding at which neither party has to appear. Believe it or not, you can do that in the state of Montana – even if both of you are not physically in the state. Believe it or not, it is legal, and can be done for under $1000.
Who gets married this way? Here's one typical couple.
First Lt. Derek Ping couldn’t wait to marry his fiancee. So he got hitched from 7,000 miles away, without even saying “I do.”“When she told me we could get married without either of us being there, I thought it was pretty weird,” the 25-year-old soldier admitted. “Now that we did it — well, it’s still weird. But I’m glad we did it.”
The couple’s double-proxy marriage — a legal ceremony requiring neither party to be present — is among about 30 weddings organized by S&B Inc, nearly all military.
While several states allow a stand-in to say the vows for one spouse, the completely absentee nuptials are an option only in Montana; the union is recognized by all 50 states and the U.S. military.
The Pings, who live in Waco, Texas, had to fill out several identification forms and submit notarized statements of their sworn love before they received a marriage certificate in the mail. But for the couple, it was the only way to tie the knot while he was deployed in Iraq.
Soldiers are realizing that if they don’t make it home, the woman they promised to marry later will have no access to benefits if he dies. So rather than waiting, there is a way for the couples to get married now. It may not be romantic, but it is practical. Most couples apparently have a church wedding latter.
At the University of California – San Francisco, it will be "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" on Thursday, with the program sponsored by the Center For Gender Equity. Unfortunately, the term “Gender Equity” has quite an Orwellian meaning. All you have to do is look at the scheduled program to understand that the program is being run in a manner that can only be described as “separate and unequal.”
For example, the 9- and 10-year-old daughters are being invited to participate in 17 hands-on activities such as working with microscopes, slicing brains, doing skull comparisons, seeing what goes on in the operating room, playing surgeon, dentist or nurse for a day, and visiting the intensive care unit nursery, where they can set up blood pressure cuffs and operate the monitors. They can learn about earthquake and disaster preparedness, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to operate several types of equipment -- even fire a laser.And what do the boys get to do?
Learn about "gender equity in fun, creative ways using media, role playing and group games" -- after which, the boys can get a bit of time in with a microscope or learn how the heart works.
Yeah, you’ve got it – the girls get to experience all the neat things the University has to offer, while the boys get political indoctrination in Double-Plus-Good feminist thought. The Center’s director defends the two-track program this way.
Longtime center director Amy Levine, however, tells us the program isn't intended to give boys and girls the same learning opportunities -- nor, she says, is it a career day."It's about dealing with effects of sexism on both boys and girls and how it can damage them," she said.
Hence, while the boys undergo gender sensitivity training, the girls focus on their capabilities -- be it handling a scalpel or microscope.
Well, at least they are not claiming that the programs are equal – but I am a little bit scared that Ms. Levine is so proud of fostering discrimination at a public university using public dollars. What led to the decision to set up the two tracks?
UCSF tried mixing the boys with the girls a few years back, but Levine says it just didn't work out."It mirrored the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily," she said, "where boys raise their hands more often, demand more attention and have discipline problems."
So now the boys have their own gender sensitivity program, where "they learn about violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives," Levine said.
So because boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, there needs to be a separate program to emasculate the males and turn them into pathetic little Alan Aldas and Al Frankens. I hope that parents at UCSF have the courage to just say no to this pathetic attempt at social engineering, and that UCSF either mends it or ends it by the time next year rolls around.
That's hilarious that he's criticizing the way Britain is handling the problem. Umm, Tony, where
Read more in Tony Blair Speaks Out
Light said:
I must say you are well informed.
Theo van Gogh got killed by a man who didnt like Theo's
Read more in Voice Of The Fifth Column
Rhymes With Right said:
And Light -- if you are going to make the argument that I should keep my ind open about 9/11 bein
Read more in Voice Of The Fifth Column
Rhymes With Right said:
Since you don't speak English very well, I'll excuse you for not realizing that in our language "
Read more in Voice Of The Fifth Column
Light said:
Dear Greg,
This is the first time i visit this site/blog or whatever it is.
I fou
Read more in Voice Of The Fifth Column
 |
Comments on When Will The FCC Shut These Folks Down?
Randi Rhodes is apologizing only because she got caught. If the FBI is not investigating, then surely the FCC may have the opportunity to fine them heavily or yank their FCC license.
I've blogged this as well knowing that you don't make "fun" threats toward an American President, no matter what party he/she is from.
Just as making instigating threats of firebombing a church or a Walmart store to incite some lefty loonies who might just take that challenge up.
Kooks everywhere when they're like that.
Air America: twice using a gun scene to make believe the assassination of President Bush.
You have your Columbia (?) University Journalism Professor advocating students to write a fake blow by blow story of a President Bush getting shot.
Or a novel with characters bent on killing President Bush.
Idiots...everyone of them.
|| Posted by mcconnell, April 27, 2005 08:39 PM ||Why, don't you get it?? It was satire (yeah *that's* the ticket). It was all in jest, why if you could have just seen the laughter and joking going on just *off mic* you would know.....I can't do it...this is too sad, and probably too close to at least one of the angles her future legal defense will try and use....wanna take any bets on that?
When are the *kids* out there going to learn, there is a time and place for just about everything, and promoting (however subtle..though it wasn't in this case) the assassination of the President, is considered by most to be even one rung higher on the ladder of *freedom of speech restrictions* then yelling fire in a crowded theater.
On a side note, I wonder if Err America's PR department is spinning this as "Bad PR is still better than no PR at all"?
|| Posted by Guy S., April 28, 2005 01:11 AM ||The best part is the excuses the bloggers are coming up with ("Well Delay said we should kill all judges!"). Ironic that even after Clinton, Dems still can't accept being caught with their pants down. Furthermore, can you imagine if it was the other way around? I posted some comparisons on my blog that they would enjoy.
|| Posted by Brash Limburg, April 28, 2005 02:03 PM ||There was a senator from Texas who empathized with the folks for killing judges and you right-wingers muted on this subject and now this girl joked, you cry a huge river?
Absurd statements -- mccock, as always -- you bore me with your pro-bush rantings.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, April 30, 2005 03:34 AM ||R: don't you have a deaf homosexuals meeting to attend or something?
|| Posted by Hube, April 30, 2005 07:38 AM ||Uh, Ridor -- no one "empathized" with those who kill judges.
And you were warned about that nickname over on my old site -- this is the last time you will be warned on this one.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, April 30, 2005 08:32 AM ||Hube, obsessed with my sexual orientation implied that you are interested in this, eh?
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, April 30, 2005 05:28 PM ||Hey RWR, Tom Cronym (sp?) of Texas commented that he completely understood when people killed the "judges".
He said it. In other words, he empathized it. Don't deny this.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, April 30, 2005 05:30 PM ||Nothing about pro-Bush here on killing a President.
Now, when people are reduced to being little boys and girls by calling other people names simply mean they have nothing to show for. As I said in my blogsite and elsewhere, I don't condone any killing of judges, officials, VP or President, even in a joking manner (e.g. Err America). People wouldn't say "bomb" in an airport anymore than to talk about killing a President, even if you think it's funny (some people still think it's funny to say "bomb" in a crowded airport or on an airplane...are you that person?)
I have said again and again that I'd be the first person to stand up against this type of lunacy, even if it were directed at President Clinton, Carter, et al. calling for their deaths.
R, you'd be the last to object, if ever, such a killing, even if it were a joke, against a Republican President or important officials. No wonder you smiled when President Reagan died. Tells alot about your psyche.
Prove me wrong on whether you condone such an action or not.
|| Posted by mcconnell, April 30, 2005 06:44 PM ||McCo... -- you do not know me very well. YOu cannot question my psyche. What Reagan did to the gay community is beyond descipable thing.
Deal with it.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, April 30, 2005 09:00 PM ||Oh, that old myth, again? The Reagan-didn't-do-squat-for-the-gay-community boo hoo thing?
Oh, please. I've addressed this in my blog last year.
"The Reagan anti-AIDS/HIV myths"
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $8 million in fiscal year 1982 (remember that President Reagan was inaugurated on January 20, 1981). By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $2.322 billion for HIV/AIDS. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan Administration spent $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS.
And more.....
Stop being a kool aid drinker, R. Not a pretty sight.
And, oh, yeah, I can CERTAINLY question your psyche cause I just did. :-)
|| Posted by mcconnell, April 30, 2005 09:49 PM ||Thanks for saving me the time and effort of finding those numbers.
The Reagan Administration paid plenty of attention to this particular disease -- well out of proportion to its incidence in the general public, when compared to different cancers and other diseases.
I realize it isn't PC to say such things, but you know it is the truth. HIV/AIDS got the level of funding and attention it did only because its initial outbreak was among a relatively small population that had a disproportionate representation in the arts and entertainment community, which got it special attention from the media.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, April 30, 2005 10:14 PM ||http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2004/11/reagan-anti-aidshiv-myths.html
Forgot to add that to my earlier comment.
|| Posted by mcconnell, April 30, 2005 10:35 PM ||Thanks.
I knew because I was there -- you can use the data to back your phony arguments, mcco... but the truth remains the same -- many gays are glad that reagan is dead.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 1, 2005 12:11 AM ||So Ridor, what you are saying is that we are not to bother you with the facts of the matter because, as a 31-year-old, you can remember what it was like back between when you were age 6-14 and you KNOW what the truth really was, no matter what the evidence demonstrates to have been the case.
Now, if you are claiming that you were a sexually active participant in the homosexual world back at the time, then maybe we need to reeexamine the NAMBLA issue. But if you are merely claiming that you were breathing at the time, that is irrelevant to the argument, because so were McConnell and I -- and I at least was old enough to have followed the HIV/AIDS issue from its genesis in the late 1970s when the first reports of rare cancers, pneumonias and suppressed immune systems began appearing in places like Omni magazine and (later) the popular press.
As for why so many gays celebrated the death of Reagan, its very easy to explain. They remain upset that he didn't turn the entire healthcare budget of the United States to fight a disease which could have been checked by gay men ending their culture of promiscuous anonymous sex, and because he didn't think that having a virus was a civil rights issue.
|| Posted by Rhymes WithRight, May 1, 2005 08:11 AM ||...and the truth comes out.
It is the promiscuous gays and homosexuals that contribute to the HIV problem. Simple as that. You can throw all kinds of money at it and people will still want to do what they want to do, and some go looking for it on purpose as a "badge of honor." That's the reality. Gays are upset because Reagan didn't "voice louder" about the HIV problem. Well, he was the first President to help tackle in finding a cure to eradicate HIV by bring nearly 6 billion dollars to the table over several years while he was in office.
To them, it's not enough. The problem is, they don't want to be held accountable for their mistakes and want to point fingers at President Reagan, instead.
Typical knee jerk response.
|| Posted by mcconnell, May 1, 2005 08:58 AM ||"I knew because I was there."
Now, I'm laughing.
This is getting surreal.
So, R, you're saying that Reagan did not help enough with the HIV problem? Nearly $6 billion dollars is not enough? Even during Clinton's time, the HIV was still just as bad then.
Reagan's era was at a different thinking and acceptance at that time. It's not like what it is now...with loads of information, prevention measures, more $$, more studies on finding a vaccine, etc...more than ever...and we STILL have a serious HIV problem, even to the point, supposedly so, of producing a "super HIV" bug.
Better blame Clinton for your failures as well.
|| Posted by mcconnell, May 1, 2005 09:12 AM ||C'mon, stop lying. I was 10 when I heard the accusations that gay people caused the HIV virus. It was not even true.
The mass paranoia that the HIV virus has spread across the nation while Reagan did NOTHING to address the awareness. He allowed lots of misconceptions to run wild.
Gay people had to fight for themselves -- they were the ones who berated and fought nail and tooth each of the way.
Reagan gave up and had ot do something because the tide was turning against him.
That is the fact. Stop twisting things to your ends.
McCo..., you wonder why the gays are promiscuous? It is because the society kept on discriminating them from day one, they lacked the self-worth to a point where they opened their legs.
If the gay rights has been provided to them by the start, none of this would have happen.
But no, you do not think so. Typical stupid heterosexual mentality.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 1, 2005 02:40 PM ||RWR, let it be the final warning -- try to associate me with NAMBLA is not something to be appreciated on my side. I find NAMBLA to be rephrensible and your comments implied that I was used by an adult ... is offensive at its best.
I personally do not care if you ban me or not -- but associating me with NAMBLA to continue the stereotypical views of extreme homophobic heterosexuals is not something that I want to associate -- if it is being repeated, I'll never return to your website (after all, you emailed me to urge me to come back and comment on your new blogsite -- I did it because I am nice enough to do so!) ever if you do associate me with the retarded organization.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 1, 2005 02:50 PM ||Ridor, that was NOT what I was doing, and I hope you know it. My intent was not to make an accusation on either side of the issue of abuse.
My point was that you chronologically would not have been involved in the gay community unless all the statements you make about it are untrue. I know full well that you reject that organization -- it is one of the things I am most sure of about you, as a matter of fact.
Now you say you heard things at age 10 -- that clarifies the point. It also shows that you heard things that were wrong -- which we all did. Homosexuals did not CAUSE AIDS, but certain practices of the gay community definitely contributed to its spread, and there was great resistance to making changes necessary to stop the spread of the virus. Heck, I believe I recently read that the rate of infection among the younger generation is increasing precisely because of the conscious decision to return to some of those practices.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 1, 2005 03:31 PM ||Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS are still rampant, even with all the education TODAY! Even during Clinton's time. And Reagan's. You see, R, education is one of the best way to counter the spread of HIV. But the problem is with younger people, they think they're invincible and think "It'll never happen to me." Or "I'm areful who I sleep with." Or "I only kiss." Or whatever cautionary indiscretion they attempt to do to "protect" themselves. Whether this is about drugs, driving too fast, not wearing a seat belt, drinking, or having sex they think it'll never happen to them. Guess what. It does.
Putting the blame on a single President regarding the spread of HIV shows how pugnaciously ignorant you are. People make their own decisions, even with the knowledge of HIV and the education, and still they make reckless and dangerous decisions where they contract and/or spread the HIV disease elsewhere.
You have no one to blame but yourselves. This is what I'm talking about. These high risk people need to acknowledge and accept their responsibilities about HIV and their high risk activities exposing themselves to HIV. Once you assign blame to somebody, other than yourselve, is a sign of non-acceptance and lack of acknowledge. Guess what that makes you, R?
Even after years of public education campaigns, volunteer work going door to door handing out flyers, PBS shows, local news, newspaper articles, magazines, etc..ad nauseum. All seem to barely stem the tide of the rising HIV/AIDS cases but realistically, it's all a failure. Blame Reagan, you blame Clinton as well. Both threw money into finding a cure.
|| Posted by mcconnell, May 1, 2005 04:01 PM ||You know it, buddy. Stop playing this sick "victimhood" game you're doing. It's pathetic. Have some real gonads and accept the responsibilities. Even Netrox, or Jeff, is smart about that and not be that rabbit at every turn.
I'm not even your buddy. HIV/AIDS education was initiated not by Reagan or his cronies. It was initiated by gay people who reached out to the peers.
When it first spread, your religious groups claimed that it was god's punishment. It was not. What did we do? We fend for ourselves. YOu did NOTHING.
No, it is not about victimhood or whatever you wanted to label this on others -- the whole point is that Reagan's silence contributed to the deaths of people that could be prevented or prolonged for years.
Don't lie.
Abstinence does NOT work. Promiscuity occurs when people felt low about themselves because of rampant discrimination on them in almost everything else. They turned to each other seeking ways to relieve the stress and boom, they got HIV -- you heterosexuals are responsible for creating dimensions of discriminations towards different groups. Has been like that for years and will occur for years.
When I grew up, I already knew that I am gay but the discrimination on gays were evident and obvious from day one, created by the hocus pocus religious groups (more to be specific: Christians!) who puts the hardships on others.
And guess what? I do not expect you, McWeenie, to understand or accept -- you'll always find a way to refute that you're right and I"m wrong.
So screw you anyway.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 1, 2005 06:36 PM ||There it is again..."Ima a victim! Look at me, ima a victim!" Your comments virtually shouts "victimhood" all over the place. All this by simply laying blame to one single person...Reagan. It is certainly a devout sign of "victimhood" in the make.
$6 billion dollars to get the HIV research underway to find a cure, not to mention a massive education program to inform people about HIV, certainly does not sound like "doing nothing." Heck, even with Clinton as President, HIV was still prevlalent among heteros and gays.
If y'all want to think yourselves as uncontrollable rabbits (or maybe penguins), who am I to disagree if you keep coming up with these excuses? Just like warnings on cigarette cartons about smoking, the warnings were there for years. Those warning labels were apparent and obvious but people ignored them all the time. Still they died knowing the warnings. Who to blame? Yourselves, mostly.
Sex may be addictive, but, hey, people know the risks. So, all they can blame is themselves when they get STDs.
No wonder HIV is so rampant. All one has to do is look at R's comment here to understand their mentality.
Nice to call me names, again. You're returning to your old self again. ;-)
One thing I do applaud, is seeing that you decided to start exercising now that you have more time. That's a step in the right direction.
|| Posted by mcconnell, May 1, 2005 09:12 PM ||MInd your own business. What I do with my private life is none of your business, you hetero-prick.
I had been losing a lot of weight for the last 3 years and it is been done without YOUR saying a word in the process. And like cigarettes, the HIV virus is not exactly "rampant" as you liked it to be. But it could have been greatly prevented in the first place but REagan's silence did absolutely NOTHING. Reagan did not do anything for six years then finally admitted something. By then, lots of people were already infected. Lots of people were already bashed, lots of people were already killed.
Call it a victimhood if you must -- Reagan is still responsible to many people who associated with Reagan. Why do you think Larry Kramer condemned Reagan and was so happy that Reagan had Alzheimers and finally died of that?
And do not talk about my personal life -- take a look at yourself first. One has to wonder why you married a woman from the cafeteria. Becaus eyou cannot score anywhere at Gallaudet. Pity, though.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 2, 2005 02:20 PM ||"...could have been greatly prevented" is an exaggeration knowing that even with education, even during Clinton's time, didn't do much at all to knock down those HIV cases every year. Else, the number of HIV cases would've gone down to low numbers which would have been as a sign of success. But, sadly, this is not the case. People need to get more creative with the HIV education.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap.htm - btw, started with the help of Ronnie.
Victimology - guess who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kramer
Right. You read too much of his conspiracy theories.
As for my wife, you never met her. And so what? I'm happy with her. And I don't have to run to the doctor every 6 months. Harsh, but true.
As for your personal life. I don't care but like I said, I don't "kiss and tell."
Losing weight? Great. How much? 10 lbs? Seriously, being overweight can present health problems later on in life.
Larry Kramer...when he dies. Guess who'll be happy?
Don't look at me, buddy. I frown on making death wishes, except for terrorists under Osama's (et al) umbrella.
|| Posted by mcconnell, May 2, 2005 06:39 PM ||Getting tested every 6 months is nothing to be ashamed of, you jerkass. It is good way to keep tabs on yourself.
I did not lose 10 lbs. I lost more than 30 lbs, take it or leave it.
AGain it is none of your business on how I conduct my life -- you are heterosexual, you are not interested in these stuff -- you only knew them in order to berate me from time to time.
The research of HIV/AIDS was started by Reagan when gays pressured the Congress to force REagan to do something else. Don't bother to lie.
AS for Larry Kramer, I do not fall for stuff like wikipedia. You may but I do not.
For once, stick with your stuff, stop crossing my stuff -- you just do not know who I am entirely so f* off.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 2, 2005 11:43 PM |||| Greg, 05:06 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment