About Me

Name: Bob Siegel
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The President Who Brings Us Beyond Race



During last week's press conference, President Obama was asked how he felt about the case of mistaken identity when police almost arrested Harvard professor, Henry Luis Gates for breaking into his own home after being accidentally locked out. Gates was already inside the house when police arrived. He showed his driver's license but was still booked for exhibiting what the police called "loud and tumultuous behavior."

Professor Gates claimed it was a case of racial profiling and I doubt that Obama would have even been asked about this incident if he were not an African-American president. Was this a racial profiling question? Hmm...In any event, Obama started off by saying that he did not know the details of the story. That wasn't a bad way to begin and it may have been the first time President Obama has spoken the truth. So why didn't he quit while he was ahead and end the discussion right there? If he doesn't know the details, why continue talking? Oh well, as you know by now, he did continue. He went on to say that in general,  racial profiling is a serious problem in our country. Now, who could listen to a statement like that and conclude anything other than an implication of the policemen's guilt. Obama also said the police had behaved stupidly for arresting Gates even though they insisted the man's behavior left much to be desired.

Since then, President Obama has come under a great deal of criticism. For this reason, he contacted Officer Crowley ( the police sergeant in question) and expressed regret that he had not chosen his words more carefully, along with assurances that he had no intention to malign Crowley's character. Why oh why would we have thought that, Obama?  And then, history repeated itself. Once again Obama could have left well enough alone but he went on to say more. This time, he pointed out that the very fact racial profiling was even thought of, shows us how it continues to be a problem in our country.

Don't you just love these political apologies: "I'm kind of, sort of, sorry, but not altogether wrong because race is still a serious issue in our country even if race was not an issue this particular time."

When Obama ran for president, he became known as the man who would put race behind us. He has done no such thing. Even while running, he accused the McCain campaign of racism throughout the election but then after winning, he congratulated McCain for running a "clean campaign."

After November, we were told that this gesture of electing an African-American president would heal our nation's monumental racial divide and eliminate racism once and for all.

Nothing even close to that has happened.  Before the dust settled, Obama appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General.  Holder started in immediately by calling us a nation of cowards because we'd never had a "serious discussion about race."

Is President Obama cementing in a divisive crack or driving a train through it?  None of this should surprise us. After all, the very fact that we were sternly warned to either vote for a black man or be labeled a racist showed what a backward country we truly are. Ironically, there had once been a great deal of progress. Much of Martin Luther King's dream of a colorless society started to happen in the late sixties and seventies. I believe King would be turning in his grave to see our country overlook a man whose past was laced with racist and terrorist associates, only to make this same man our president simply because he is black. Why is that not viewed as racism? I believe it would have been by King. I also believe that if a man like King had become our president, racial problems may have truly waned.

In the next election, Obama may be voted out of office for his socialist policies and unwillingness to confront dictators, terrorists and thugs. But that will not be be the way the liberal press spins it. Instead, the headline will read the next morning: "America Votes First Black President Out Of Office."

In the meantime, he is still in office and if you think that's a symbol of racial healing, then you must be the kind of person who believes a head ache cures a stomach ache.



Also by Bob Siegel:

Obama Put Race Behind Us?




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Our New Commander Really the Sharpest Pencil in the Box?


Have you heard the latest? Some GITMO detainees may be transferred to U.S. prisons. According to Front Page Magazine, about 80 percent of those who find religion in prison turn to the Muslim faith and the Muslim percentage of today's prison population is between 15-20 percent, with 350,000 inmates who identify themselves as Muslim, and 30,000-40,000 a year being added to rolls. 

With such stupendous stats in mind, one must conclude that the latest decision by the Obama administration is a stroke of sheer genius. Let's take a bunch of Muslim terrorists and thrust them into the heart of America's prime breeding ground for Muslim converts.  Rest assured, our new Commander-In-Chief is bending over backwards to keep you and your family just as safe as can be.



Also by Bob Siegel


Are There Peaceful Muslims in the World?







Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Law Includes the Prophets


QUESTION:

"Bob, if God intended for the Israelites to someday live under a New Covenant, one in which the law was no longer in operation, why didn't He say as much when He gave them the law?"

Part of the law is the book of Deuteronomy. At the end of Deuteronomy, Moses, in his farewell address, tells the congregation of Israel that God will continue to communicate with them through prophets (Deut 18). This is a very important passage, for in it, Moses, is elevating the prophets to the law.

Now we can flash forward to the time of Jeremiah, a prophet with all the authority that Moses ascribed to future prophets. Jeremiah speaks of a time when God will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, in which their rapport with the law will be different. God will write the law on their hearts (Jer 31).

"But many do not care for the idea of a prophet. They want God alone to come down and make Himself known."


That is just exactly what God did. He came down to Mt. Sinai with trumpets, with fire, and with special effects that would make George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg pop their jaws. The first ten of His commandments were uttered audibly, right out of the sky.  God did just exactly what people always ask Him to do. And how did the Israelites respond? They freaked out!  They couldn't handle it. They took Moses aside and said, "Look, why don't you go up to the mountain, let God give the rest of His law to you, and then you can come back down and tell us what He said."

So Moses did this. He was up on the mountain with God for 40 days and 40 nights. When he returned, the people mumbled and grumbled, "How do we know God really spoke to Moses?  Why should we listen to him?  He could be making all this up."

At the end of his life, while reminding the Israelites that God would now be sending additional prophets, Moses also reminded them: "This was your idea. God offered to speak directly and you chose another way. You chose prophets, so you'd just better listen to them!"


Also by Bob Siegel:

Questions and Concerns About Christianity By Bob Siegel at 4:36 PM on 6/1/2009







Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Care For All: And If You Believe That, Let's Go Ask the Wizard For a Brain


And the hits just keep on coming. Details about Obama's nationalized health care paint a slightly different picture than the one he is trying to sell. Part of the package will guarantee free abortions. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, but still, let me see if I understand all of this: Some people, such as the elderly, will be denied certain procedures because there is only so much money to go around but naturally there will be enough money for mothers to have their babies killed.

And why will the elderly be at the end of the line?  Because they have lived their lives and youth come first. That's good news for the youth unless they are too young, kicking in the rights of a mother to choose.

And this monster gets packaged with words like "compassion" and "health care for all"?  It's enough to make me throw up, but I won't. That probably isn't covered either.


This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.




Also by Bob Siegel: 

Please send out the following important blog about Hate Crimes legislation before it is too late:

The Law About Hate That We Love To Hate




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pastor Arrested For Protesting Abortion


This week, The Bob Siegel Show features a chilling interview with Pastor Walter Hoye, who was arrested in Oakland for exercising his right to free speech outside an abortion clinic. His attorney, Mike Millen, also joins us in the discussion.

This program was originally broadcast on 7-19-09 and can now be downloaded off of my website: www.bobsiegel.net

Download now:


7-19-09: Pastor Arrested Over Abortion


The Bob Siegel Show can be heard Sundays from 3:00-4:00 PM Pacific Time on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the internet.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal Lexicon


Time again to remind us of the true definitions and authentic meanings behind all these fun liberal sayings and phrases:

NOTE: I appreciate Dennis Prager's words, "I prefer clarity to agreement."  In that vein, I respect your right to believe whatever you want. All I ask is that you not be somebody's fool. Just understand that when those who drive these movements use the following rhetoric, they mean something completely different from what they are saying. I can and have documented every single item in previous blogs. If you agree with the true meaning of these sayings, so be it. But please know what you are agreeing with.

1) We need to have bi-partisanship: 
Republicans should do things the way Democrats want them done.

2) We need to show compassion to illegal aliens:
California, New Mexico, Utah, Texas and Arizona should all be given back to Mexico.

3) We need to stop Hate Crime:  We need to make it against the law to speak against homosexuality.

4) We need to have marriage equality and thus allow gay marriage; We need to make it against the law to speak against homosexuality. (That's right. The same old skunk hides behind two different masks.)

5) All Americans should be entitled to free health care: We will make it against the law to not have health insurance and charge a fee to all Americans who do not have health insurance. That will help pay for everyone else to have insurance. We will also decide whether or not some people are too old to have certain procedures.

6) We need to do something about Global Warming: We need an excuse to tax your brains out.

7) The constitution is a living, breathing document:
We need to make the constitution say what we want it to say since, if we continued to live under a democracy, our policies would be voted down.

8) Jerusalem should be a place where Jews and Arabs together can worship in peace: Jerusalem should be a place owned and run by Arabs who will banish all Jews.

9) We must keep religion and state separated: We actually do not care about limiting any religion but Christianity and someday hope to make Christianity against the law.

10) Obama has no desire to regulate Talk Radio unless certain shows contain hate speech: Obama has no desire to regulate Talk Radio unless certain shows say anything critical of him.

11) Obama loves America enough to transform America:
Obama plans to destroy the old America and create a new America that you will not recognize. Here is how it will be spelled: 

A M E R I K A




Also by Bob Siegel: 

Please send out the following important blog about Hate Crimes legislation before it is too late:

The Law About Hate That We Love To Hate





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Try To Forget Her Words and Just Look At Her Record: She's a Very Good Liar...Ah..Lawyer!


Even if people have differing views of Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, (whether or not we should allow a judicial activist or a strict constructionist) how do people get around the fact that the woman has proven herself to be a down right liar, a liar who is about to be granted a lifetime appointment to our highest court in the land?

She says she does not believe race plays a role in judicial wisdom. But about nine different speeches record her saying just the opposite. She also says she does not believe our constitution is a living document and that it should not be made subservient to international law.  Sounds great, but when asked about previous contradictory words, Miss Sotomayor offered up an Academy Award caliber performance of verbal gymnastics which attempted to explain that she had never really said what we all heard her say.

Where does she get the brass? What led her to believe she could say all this with a straight face and get away with it?  The answer is actually quite simple: Her inspiration is the president who appointed her. After all, he lies through his teeth every single day. He lies when he says he has no desire to take over banks. He lies when he says he has no desire to take over the auto industry, and he lies when he says he has no desire to grow our government. We know he's lying because we are watching him do all these things he says he does not want to do. Still, people marvel at how polished a speaker he is and how nice he looks in his suit. Oh yeah, and he's not George Bush. That has to count for something.

May I ask you again?  How do you like the change so far?



Also by Bob Siegel: 

Please send out the following important blog about Hate Crimes legislation before it is too late:

The Law About Hate That We Love To Hate



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Need For Follow-Up Questions


When asked for her opinion about abortion as it would relate to serving on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor offered a tired, classic answer that supposedly ends all discussion: "Abortion is established law."

Just once, I'd like to see a follow-up question, the kind that would force people to speak their minds or (even more refreshing) speak the truth.

How about this? "Miss Sotomayor, inasmuch as abortion was against the law prior to 1973, had you been on the Supreme Court back then, would you have voted against Roe Vs. Wade since the outlaw of abortion was, at that time, established law?"

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.



Also by Bob Siegel: 

Please send out the following important blog about Hate Crimes legislation before it is too late:

The Law About Hate That We Love To Hate




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Bee Hospital


The following story is from my childhood. I need to begin with a disclaimer. I was a fairly normal kid. Honestly, I was. Why do I start by offering such reassurance?  Because I am about to share an incident which will sound sadistic and I was not sadistic. I was a kindly youth who had no desire to hurt anything or anybody. I was, however, a creative young lad and at about six years of age, my creativity took an unusual direction. I decided to create a hospital for bees and I talked some friends into helping.

Yes, my friends and I built a miniature bee hospital, with bee beds and little sticks used as doctor's instruments. Where did we get the bee patients?  Well...ah...um..err...by dropping rocks on real, live, honest to goodness bees and wounding them so that they would need to use our bee hospital.

Looking back at this strange time in my youth, many questions can be asked:  While other kids were learning to play baseball, why did I have a desire to build a hospital for bees?  And how is it that my eccentric creativity blinded me to how cruel I was actually being to my "patients?"  But the biggest question of all is this: Inasmuch as I learned how to solve problems by producing a crisis and then controlling the situation, why did I not pursue a career in politics?  When I look at the solutions to Health Care, Global Warming and other "catastrophes" that are supposedly solved only by signing over more and more of our freedom to a government that rides in on its white horse, I wonder how many people from the Obama administration were trained by building their own bee hospitals.


This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  Below is another important blog about another important subject. Please send it to anyone unaware of the Hate Crimes Bill going before our senate this week:


The Law About Hate That We Love To Hate



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Law About Hate That We Love To Hate


Virtually nobody is talking about this, not the major networks, not the cable networks, not even a whole lot of Talk Radio shows. Our country is pacified right now over important stories such as Michael Jackson.

Well, let me tell you, folks, Jackson's death not withstanding, something a little more life changing is coming up. The latest version of a new upgraded Hate Crimes Bill has already passed our House of Representatives. Before you can say dictatorship the Senate will be voting on this same brilliant idea. I urge everyone around the country to call their senators and make it clear in no uncertain terms that they will be voted out of office if they pass this horrific piece of tyrannical legislation that shrouds itself with warm fuzzy rhetoric such as, "You don't believe in hate do you?"

FYI: Today "hate" is defined as anyone who disagrees with Political Correctness. Long before the first genius added the word hate to the word crime, it was already a crime to murder or do acts of violence against anybody, black, white, gay, or straight. Vandalism was also against the law. The motives for such actions were irrelevant.  If my friend or loved one has been killed, the fact that he wasn't killed by a hateful person is not much of a consolation.  A body has been buried either way. The very notion of increasing an evil butcher's  penalty based upon some judge's arbitrary assessment of motives makes our justice system stand on its head and scream.

JUDGE: Miss Abigail, you have been charged with the murder of your husband. How do you plead?

ATTORNEY:  Your Honor, my client did indeed kill her husband. But she didn't do it out of hate.

JUDGE: Is this true, Miss Abigail?

ABIGAIL:  There isn't a hateful bone in my body, Your Honor.  In fact, Your Honor, I'll go you one better: Not only did I not hate him; I loved him.

JUDGE:  Hmm...Loved him, you say? In that case, your sentence is reduced to one year.

ABIGAIL:  Your Honor, did I mention that I loved him a lot?

JUDGE: A lot? Wow! All right, three months of community service. Oh, and we'll also throw in this gift certificate for Bed Bath and Beyond.

Although a Hate Crimes bill was already passed a while back, this latest version, Hate Crime 3.0, adds a special new wrinkle, revealing the true agenda behind Hate Crime legislation which many of us have been warning you about for years. Long ago, we discussed the slippery slope. We tried to tell you: Discussions of intent in addition to actions could one day make the "actions" part of the equation archaic. If we opened up Pandora's Box, Hate Crime laws would, in the end, lead to Hate Speech laws. We told you time and time again. Now it is actually happening. This current bill makes it a Hate Crime to hurt homosexuals and other people with controversial choices of sexual expression.  But wait!  There's more!  Yes, Johnny, under this latest looney law, any words, spoken or written that may have inspired a violent act against a gay person can also be viewed as a crime. This means exactly what we always feared it would mean: Your own pastor can now be arrested for merely teaching what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.  If that sounds paranoid and far fetched, I remind you that in Canada, they are beyond the term, Hate Crime and have, instead, adapted a law that simply contains the term Hate Speech. This law forbids any critical opinion of homosexuality. By a thin thread, religious opinion is still protected in Canada but many believe that will soon evaporate as well. Besides, one should be entitled to their own view of homosexuality whether it is a religious based opinion or not.

The American bill does not go quite as far as Canada, at least not yet. Under our current potential rule, your pastor would only be arrested if somebody hurt or killed a homosexual and then claimed Rev. McDonald's sermon inspired him.  See the trend?  We went from crime, to motive for the crime, to some third party's speech inspiring the motive for the crime. What will be next? Next, Sweet Virginia, the violent act will no longer be necessary for a conviction. The pastor's speech in its own right will be against the law. I promise you, it will happen just exactly this way. You see, every time we pass such illogical legislation, we erode sensible law an inch at a time. Ambitious future goals never seem as far fetched when they are only one step away. People can get used to anything, even ridiculous rules. They become comfortable old leather and the frog gets boiled slowly.  It will happen here as it already happened in Canada, mark my words. The only hope is for people to wake up and do the right thing. Protest this travesty even if you have to shout it from the roof tops. Your bending over backwards has not worked. Your rolling over and playing dead has not worked. Your apologizing for the right to believe what you want to believe has not worked! Your walking on egg shells to avoid offending people has not worked. Your shyness in hopes of avoiding the label "hate" has not worked!  And now your beliefs are being outlawed right under your own nose because the nose of our nation with its ability to smell a rat DOES NOT WORK!!!

The agenda of successful Canadian activists is the true agenda with gay activists in America as well. They are not interested in stopping hate. They want their lifestyle affirmed by law. In the name of tolerance, they are completely intolerant of your own opinion.  You are simply not allowed to have a view that contradicts theirs. Many courageous gay people have themselves spoken out against such laws and I applaud them for doing so.

Make no mistake: This is not about Hate Crime. It is about Thought Police.


Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.


Also by Bob Siegel:

If You Think Gay Marriage Will Not Affect You, Think Again!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Like Getting Two Senators For the Price of One When They Talk Out Of Both Sides of Their Mouths


Those who defend the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, do so by talking out of both sides of their mouths.

On one hand, they are assuring us that her ethnicity will not affect her judgment. Well, nobody ever claimed it would until we heard her say that a Latino woman will make better rulings than a white male. You'll have to forgive us for raising an eye brow or two after a comment like that.

In any event, we are supposed to ignore this "casual innocent remark" and assume that the lady will make objective rulings, unaffected by gender or race. On the other hand, we are told that having a Latino on the court brings balance. Having another female to join Ruth Ginsburg also brings balance.

Hmm...I guess I don't understand. If her race and gender will have nothing to do with her judgments, how exactly will she be bringing balance?

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.


Also by Bob Siegel:

The Liberal Manifesto



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How We Got Into the Fix and How To Fix It


On this week's Bob Siegel, Show, John Sandy, who teaches economics at the University of San Diego, discusses our current financial crisis, both the history of how we got here and some ideas on how to get out of it.

The program aired 7-12-09 and can now be downloaded off of my website: www.bobsiegel.net

Download now:


7-12-09: Guest: John Sandy Economist


The Bob Siegel Show
can be heard every Sunday afternoon from 3:00-4:00 PM Pacific Time on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the internet.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Good Food, Good Meat, Praise God, Let's Eat!


I was in my early thirties doing campus ministry at UC San Diego. Walking down the free speech mall, one could not help but notice a huge display with artistic signs, showing the beauty of nature. No, this was not the Sierra Club. Indeed, the pictures were intended to provoke thoughts of spirituality and, truth be told, I was passing the Hare Krishna table. I guess their shaved heads and tan robes were the biggest give away. Hare Krishnas are an offshoot of Hinduism, a religion which teaches that God and nature are actually one and the same. God did not create the universe; God is the universe. Hare Krishnas have moved away from such teaching, but Hinduism, with its impersonal view of God, is still an origin they must contend with.

Controversial as such a theology might be, my Krishna friends had a different agenda this sunny day. In big bold letters, one of their signs said, "THE BIBLE IS A VEGETARIAN BOOK."  Justification for this healthy but inaccurate idea came from Genesis. When Adam and Eve were in the garden, they ate plants, not animals.  Sounds great. Only one problem: After these early chapters, the Bible continues for a very long time and teaches thousands of things beyond the situation in Eden.

"Are you aware," I said to them, "That in the Bible, God not only allowed people to eat meat, but there were many customs and holidays through which He commanded them to eat meat?"

"That's your interpretation," they replied.

"No, that's what it says when you read it."

"The Bible is a spiritual book and it can be interpreted many different ways."

Nothing I said was going to make a difference. They had long since made up their minds. I share this story for the following reasons:

1) It is typical of the times we live in. People make all kinds of comments about the Bible without having even read it.

2) People believe what they want to believe. Often, I am asked why there are not more Christians if Christianity is true. I have no desire to overly simplify a complicated question, but this is at least part of the answer:  People believe what they want to believe.

3) Despite such human tendencies, new movements, cults and varying religions generally exhibit a great respect for the Bible. They use the Bible as a launching pad to promote their own unique doctrines. No matter what they teach, no matter how bizarre it may sound, they want to assure you that Jesus and the apostles believed exactly the same thing. If you show them otherwise by turning to the words of Jesus, they will gently resist your "interpretation" of the Bible, without explaining how their own interpretation should automatically be accepted as the accurate reading.

One must marvel over this phenomenon, people who perhaps have a subjective sense that the Bible comes from God, who would feel unhappy or disappointed if you told them they are not truly obeying the Bible, but who still are unwilling to deal honestly with what the real words on the real pages really say.


This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.


Also by Bob Siegel:

Understanding the Difference Between Forgiving and Excusing: An Important Discussion For Today's Christians




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Law About Hate That We Love To Hate


Virtually nobody is talking about this, not the major networks, not the cable networks, not even a whole lot of Talk Radio shows. Our country is pacified right now over important stories such as Michael Jackson.

Well, let me tell you, folks, Jackson's death not withstanding, something a little more life changing is coming up. The latest version of a new upgraded Hate Crimes Bill has already passed our House of Representatives. Before you can say dictatorship the Senate will be voting on this same brilliant idea. I urge everyone around the country to call their senators and make it clear in no uncertain terms that they will be voted out of office if they pass this horrific piece of tyrannical legislation that shrouds itself with warm fuzzy rhetoric such as, "You don't believe in hate do you?"

FYI: Today "hate" is defined as anyone who disagrees with Political Correctness. Long before the first genius added the word hate to the word crime, it was already a crime to murder or do acts of violence against anybody, black, white, gay, or straight. Vandalism was also against the law. The motives for such actions were irrelevant.  If my friend or loved one has been killed, the fact that he wasn't killed by a hateful person is not much of a consolation.  A body has been buried either way. The very notion of increasing an evil butcher's  penalty based upon some judge's arbitrary assessment of motives makes our justice system stand on its head and scream.

JUDGE: Miss Abigail, you have been charged with the murder of your husband. How do you plead?

ATTORNEY:  Your Honor, my client did indeed kill her husband. But she didn't do it out of hate.

JUDGE: Is this true, Miss Abigail?

ABIGAIL:  There isn't a hateful bone in my body, Your Honor.  In fact, Your Honor, I'll go you one better: Not only did I not hate him; I loved him.

JUDGE:  Hmm...Loved him, you say? In that case, your sentence is reduced to one year.

ABIGAIL:  Your Honor, did I mention that I loved him a lot?

JUDGE: A lot? Wow! All right, three months of community service. Oh, and we'll also throw in this gift certificate for Bed Bath and Beyond.

Although a Hate Crimes bill was already passed a while back, this latest version, Hate Crime 3.0, adds a special new wrinkle, revealing the true agenda behind Hate Crime legislation which many of us have been warning you about for years. Long ago, we discussed the slippery slope. We tried to tell you: Discussions of intent in addition to actions could one day make the "actions" part of the equation archaic. If we opened up Pandora's Box, Hate Crime laws would, in the end, lead to Hate Speech laws. We told you time and time again. Now it is actually happening. This current bill makes it a Hate Crime to hurt homosexuals and other people with controversial choices of sexual expression.  But wait!  There's more!  Yes, Johnny, under this latest looney law, any words, spoken or written that may have inspired a violent act against a gay person can also be viewed as a crime. This means exactly what we always feared it would mean: Your own pastor can now be arrested for merely teaching what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.  If that sounds paranoid and far fetched, I remind you that in Canada, they are beyond the term, Hate Crime and have, instead, adapted a law that simply contains the term Hate Speech. This law forbids any critical opinion of homosexuality. By a thin thread, religious opinion is still protected in Canada but many believe that will soon evaporate as well. Besides, one should be entitled to their own view of homosexuality whether it is a religious based opinion or not.

The American bill does not go quite as far as Canada, at least not yet. Under our current potential rule, your pastor would only be arrested if somebody hurt or killed a homosexual and then claimed Rev. McDonald's sermon inspired him.  See the trend?  We went from crime, to motive for the crime, to some third party's speech inspiring the motive for the crime. What will be next? Next, Sweet Virginia, the violent act will no longer be necessary for a conviction. The pastor's speech in its own right will be against the law. I promise you, it will happen just exactly this way. You see, every time we pass such illogical legislation, we erode sensible law an inch at a time. Ambitious future goals never seem as far fetched when they are only one step away. People can get used to anything, even ridiculous rules. They become comfortable old leather and the frog gets boiled slowly.  It will happen here as it already happened in Canada, mark my words. The only hope is for people to wake up and do the right thing. Protest this travesty even if you have to shout it from the roof tops. Your bending over backwards has not worked. Your rolling over and playing dead has not worked. Your apologizing for the right to believe what you want to believe has not worked! Your walking on egg shells to avoid offending people has not worked. Your shyness in hopes of avoiding the label "hate" have not worked!  And now your beliefs are being outlawed right under your own nose because the nose of our nation with its ability to smell a rat DOES NOT WORK!!!

The agenda of successful Canadian activists is the true agenda with gay activists in America as well. They are not interested in stopping hate. They want their lifestyle affirmed by law. In the name of tolerance, they are completely intolerant of your own opinion.  You are simply not allowed to have a view that contradicts theirs. Many courageous gay people have themselves spoken out against such laws and I applaud them for doing so.

Make no mistake: This is not about Hate Crime. It is about Thought Police.


Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.


Also by Bob Siegel:

If You Think Gay Marriage Will Not Affect You, Think Again!



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

While You Speculate About Palin's Future, I will Set Her Past Straight.


Originally published 7-4-09 on Town Hall but the story won't go away so I will put my thoughts out there again:




Perhaps to avoid listening to one talking head after another, Sarah Palin chose 4th of July weekend to announce that she's stepping down as Governor of Alaska. Even talking heads will be busy stuffing their mouths with hot dogs today.  Not that some aren't commenting. Speculators wonder if Palin will use this time to launch a pre-campaign as our next president. Others say a half term governor wouldn't stand a chance.

Because her plans and reasons for the decision are so unclear, I will not pretend to know something I don't know. Therefore, instead of commenting on Sarah's future, allow me to take just a moment to clarify something about her past.

Just last week, some former McCain campaigners trashed Palin, blaming her for McCain's failure to win the 2008 election. Leave it to our wise Republican Party to shoot their own wounded.  I have news for you loyal hacks, so quick to throw somebody under the bus in the hopes of saving your own miserable political futures: John McCain's campaign was dead in the water before Palin came on board. She breathed new life and rejuvenated the Republican ticket like no one before had ever done. She gave an electrifying speech at the convention (even when the teleprompter failed) and had Barack Obama running so scared and punch drunk, he began making stupid comments about pigs with lipstick.

True, Palin didn't do too well with Katie Couric, but that was only because McCain's brilliant handlers wouldn't allow her to be herself. Sarah's genuineness was part of her charm at the convention, but prior to Couric's interview, the poor woman was stuffed with useless information as if she were cramming for an exam. And what genius approved a pre-recorded interview that CBS could edit?

Despite this McCain imposed handicap, the Republican ticket was leading by double digits before the economy began to collapse. Then, Obama, lying through his teeth, managed to convince people that the bank failures were all the fault of George Bush and that McCain would be four more years of Bush. Republicans still may have recovered if McCain had allowed Palin to talk about Obama's past connections such as the racist, Jew hating, America hating Rev.Wright.  Honestly, one wonders if McCain wasn't taken aside during those last weeks of the election by some incredible strategist: "Look, John, do you want to go down in history as a maverick or as a white man who defeated the first major African-American president?"'

Toward the end of the election, McCain seemed to be making about as much effort as the tortoise racing the hair. I realize that's an unfair analogy. The tortoise did a better job.

Naturally, I will never be able to prove what motives or efforts McCain was juggling. But I do know this: John McCain lost the election because of John McCain, not because of Sarah Palin.


Also by Bob Siegel:

England May Have Censored Curriculum, But It Does Serve to Educate Us After All


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive