Free Audio of The Glenn Beck Program available on TheBlaze Radio
Live 9am-Noon weekdays

Please Don’t Print this Blog

…You’ll be a tree killer and global warming enabler or something if you do.

While we’re talking about environmental murder, it is with great pleasure that I take on global warming with today’s episode of Stutistics. In case you missed the debut a few weeks ago, Stutistics is my new series on GBTV that gives you a shareable, digestable, and understandable way to absorb stats that will help defeat your annoying friends in arguments. All in 3 minutes or less.

That’s plenty of time to debunk a fantastic fail of a prediction by global warming darling, Dr. James Hansen in episode 2 of Stutistics.

The debate about global warming is always stuck on trying to prove whether the future predictions of doom from global warming alarmists are correct or not.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to know.  They’re predictions.  They don’t get proven right or wrong for decades.

 

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Luckily, these same people have been whining about the same thing for so long, we can check their guesses from the past. In 1988, Al Gore’s favorite scientist James Hansen laid out three scenarios for what could happen to temperatures in the future if we dismissed his cries to heed global warming.

As we show in Stutistics, his predictions and the actual temperatures don’t really match up. At all. Shocking, I know.

Climate scientist Dr. John R. Christy was one of the first people to take a hard look at Hansen’s predictions to see if they were accurate.

He’s not just some guy.  He’s the exact type of accomplished scientist that the left says doesn’t exist.

Christy:

-Is a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

-Was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991, along with Dr. Roy Spencer.

-Received a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate” also along with Dr. Roy Spencer.

-Has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change.

-Has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT

-And just because he’s a super guy, even taught the less fortunate physics and chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years.

Now, he’s no Dr. James Hansen. Did Dr. Christy advise Al Gore on his factually incorrect film “An Inconvenient Truth?”

No.

Did Dr. Christy get arrested alongside actress Daryl Hannah-two times?

No.

Was Christy asked to “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.”

No.

I think I’ll take Christy’s word over Hansen’s any day.  But, I don’t have to take his word, and neither do you.  The facts are clear, and the data tell the story.  For the complete analysis of how James Hansen went spectacularly wrong on his global temperatures predictions be sure to watch Stutistics. We did the analysis originally for Fusion magazine, but you can see most up to date temperature data here.

Oh, and can someone please forward this video to Al Gore? I think he needs to see it.

Amazingly, the media is actually worse than you thought

I learned some new things about Glenn from the mainstream media recently.  Like, how Glenn is trying to single handedly destroy the television show Glee. And how he’s planning on launching his own high school musical television show.

It must be true. I mean, all of these fabulous, trustworthy, dependable, reliable, responsible, truthful, honest, honorable, super, duper, infallible, news based truth tellers (among others) are reporting the same thing.

Funny, Glenn’s never mentioned to me his diabolical plan to personally decimate the careers of everyone who works on Glee. Nor has he mentioned the flashy, value filled alternative musical high school television show he plans on launching.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that the mainstream media completely sucks. They took 30 seconds out of his 30 minute speech at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington DC on Friday and then made a bunch of crap up.

Here’s what Glenn said:

“A year ago I was watching the show Glee with my wife. And we watched it like this (gasps).

I mean it’s horrifying some of the things that they’re teaching high schoolers, but it’s brilliantly done. It’s brilliantly done. It’s produced brilliantly, the music brilliant, the acting brilliant, the cinematography brilliant. All of it. And I said to her at the end of it, this was about a year and a half ago, we lose. There is no way to beat that. Well yes there is. We’ve spent about a year now trying to put together a push back with artists with music but not the stereotypical conservative, Lee Greenwood music. I call it my Oedipus project, because the Left will be making out with me and they’ll never see it coming. And somebody will say Don’t you know who produced that music? No, I really like it it’s great. Oh yes, yes it is.”

So, to translate for the media: Glenn thinks Glee is really well done, but it promotes values he doesn’t like, such as promiscuous sex among teenagers.  He thinks that instead of conservatives bitching about the culture, we should compete and give other options.  We should make good shows ourselves that have values that are more consistent with the country we hope to have someday—i.e. significantly less consequence-free-drunk-teenaged-porking.

What Glenn didn’t say was that he wanted to destroy Glee or that he is launching his own anti-Glee TV show.  Being in a lot of meetings with the guy, if he was pitching a musical high school series, I think I would have remembered it.

So, the media is either incompetent or lazy.  No real news breaking there.  But, it’s amazing how many of them just repeated the claim without checking.

It’s a disturbing trend in media.  These sources aren’t writing about Glenn’s speech because they found something newsworthy.  They’re writing about someone else’s article about Glenn’s speech, because someone else found it newsworthy.  They all ingested the same (wrong) spin on the story, because none of them bothered to check whether the first guy had it right or not.

Not to mention, Glenn had said all of these things about the culture, while referencing Glee, numerous times before on national radio and TV.  No one bothered to see if he had said it before.  If they had, perhaps they would have understood it a little better and not made asses of themselves.

But as bad as the media was, the award for the most insanely lazy reporting in modern history might just go to Vanity Fair.  Their story was headlined “Glenn Beck Discovers Glee Three Years After Its Premiere, Plans Conservative Rival Series.”

Of course, he isn’t planning a conservative rival series, as we have already covered.  Perhaps worse, they are mocking Glenn for his lack of knowledge about a stupid TV series, while having no knowledge at all about the topic they’re writing about.   Glenn didn’t discover Glee three years after its premiere, he’s been blabbing incessantly about that show for at least a couple of years.  Honestly, I’m sick of hearing about it from him.

The media is also apparently all up in arms about how Glenn called the values of the show “horrifying.”  Don’t give Glenn credit for that, give credit to these little things called the “laws of the United States of America.”  They seem to classify sexual activity and substance abuse among high school students, depending on exact age and state, as “illegal.”

But, this isn’t really about Glee.  It’s about how the media grabs onto a false story line and just runs with it.  None of them did a minute of research with the exception of reading whichever blogger created the big bang that started this story.  Just pathetic.

Glenn is wrong on one thing though.  Glee sucks.  It’s has nothing to do with its message–it’s just horrible.  Painful.  Unwatchable. Embarrassing.  I would seriously rather watch Ed Schultz…though I am not willing to prove it.

When is a billion dollars not that big of a deal?

To start off your week, here’s yet another ridiculous statement from Nobel Prize winning economist and wannabe Psycho-historian, Paul Krugman:

KRUGMAN: These are — we’re talking as if a billion dollars was a lot of money. In $15 trillion economy, it’s not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a long program, which has been by and large, it had a good track record—of course you’re going to find a mistake. I think to be fair, that’s probably true in Massachusetts, as well. This is ridiculous, that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps that happen in any large organizations including corporations, including Bain Capital—Bain Capital had losers, too, right? Even from the point of view of its investors.

First of all, yes—Bain did have a couple of losers. And the Obama campaign has attempted to exploit every one of them, even those that occurred when Romney wasn’t working there. The sloppiness of that tactic has been destroyed by such evil right wingers as:

Bill Clinton

Cory Booker

Chris Matthews

Ed Rendell

Harold Ford, Jr.

Car Czar Steve Rattner

But, of course, there is a hell of a difference between what Bain did and what Obama has done. Bain never spent one cent of my money. I never asked Bain to make risky bets on companies in trouble with my money—and they didn’t. I also didn’t ask Barack Obama to make risky bets on companies in trouble with my money—he did.

Back to Krugman, and his assertion that a billion dollars isn’t that much money. That’s a bit odd, considering that it’s more than enough to buy one of the two political parties in their entirety:

“Money buys power,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observed recently, “and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties.”

“Support from billionaires has always been the main thing keeping those charlatans and cranks in business,” Krugman noted. “And now the same people effectively own a whole political party.”

You see, a billion dollars is chump change when wasting it on magical fairy dust infused solar panels, but when billionaires put just a portion of their fortunes on the line for the causes they believe in—it’s inherently evil, and suddenly enough to purchase half of all the political power in Washington. Makes sense. By the way, billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffett get absolutely nothing for their generous check writing prowess.

Of course, if it was only Solyndra perhaps there would be an argument. But, there are so many more names that aren’t as familiar as Solyndra that echo the same point. Some highlights:

  • Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million…the company filed for bankruptcy protection…and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.
  • ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million…Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address…the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government: “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.” Worse, according to CBS News, the company is “under investigation for insider trading…
  • Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP $98.5 million…the company is in “financial turmoil” and that “after a series of technical missteps”…there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’”
  • First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion …the company “fell to a record low…firing 30 percent of its workforce.”
  • Abound Solar. $400 million loan guarantee…the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.
  • Beacon Power. $43 million loan guarantee…Last fall, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy.
  • SunPower. $1.2 billion loan guarantee …as of January, the company owed more than it was worth.
  • Brightsource. $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. Read more here.

From all the billions and billions thrown at these businesses, author Peter Schweizer says 71% of the cash has been funneled to businesses with close ties to Obama and democratic donors. All of that influence, purchased for just $457,834. Which is ridiculous to point out I guess—I mean, we’re talking as if $457,834 was a lot of money.

What the media doesn’t tell you about Obama’s unemployment record

By now, 84.3% of people know I’m a statistics geek.  Since you’re probably not a loser like me and don’t enjoy pouring through the minutia of numbers and lines on fancy charts, we now have an easily shareable, digestable, and understandable way to absorb the stats that will help you defeat your annoying friends in arguments.

Enter my new series on GBTV: Stutistics.  

The first episode of Stutistics debuted on GBTV last night.  I highlighted the truth behind Obama’s unemployment numbers.

You probably know that according to Obama’s own numbers, unemployment should have NEVER gone above 8% with the passage of the stimulus. 

But, there’s a more important point that conservatives should be making–find out about it in less than 3 minutes.  Watch the video here, and then watch it again. And then make your friends watch it until they get it. It’s okay to make people do things against their will, if those things are making people watch Stutistics. It’s universal law 

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Also, be sure to follow Stutistics on Twitter (@stutistics) and Facebook so you don’t miss future Stutistics on the truth behind income inequality in America, what really causes cancer, Obama’s budget and more!

Surprise! The left is lying about spending cuts!

Europe is in serious trouble. Why? The evil right wing austerity nutjobs. They continue to drastically cut spending to draconian levels (and hike taxes, but ignore that). These immense spending cuts that have taken Europe back to the middle ages—crushing their economies and risking the lives of millions or something.

In Athens, the people are resorting to dumpster diving for food.

In Spain students and teachers are striking against vicious cuts to education.

In France, the people finally put a real socialist in office, as opposed to those near-socialists who were in office before—promising an end to austerity.

Nobel Prize winner economist, Paul Krugman even warned that these horrible consequences of austerity measures could come here:

“Mitt Romney is saying basically that spending cuts are how we’re going to get to prosperity. Mitt Romney is saying, see what’s happening in Greece and in Portugal and in Spain and in Ireland; let’s do that here.”

 

How terrible! Sure, it sounds horrific. But, imagine what the cuts in spending must be like to evoke those reactions. That’s even more scarier!!!!!!!! The mostest scariest!!!!

The way the media talks about it, European spending levels have fallen off like the stock market crash of 1929!

Actually, the European spending chart isn’t quite as dramatic as you might expect. Remember—according to Krugman and the left, Europe has experienced dramatic spending cuts. Here’s the truth:

Be sure to read more from economist Veronique de Rugy here, and her further destruction of Paul Krugman’s response here.

But, it’s amazing to stop and think about this stuff every once in a while. We’re told that Europe has experienced massive spending cuts. Yet, the only country to cut spending at all was Greece, who cut it all of 8% in three years. Spain hiked its spending by 4%, the UK hiked it by 8%, Italy hiked it by 3%, and France hiked it by 9%. And they raised taxes on top of it, something no one on the right is actually advocating.

To every household on earth, cutting spending means actually spending less than you were previously. Only in the media does a 9% increase actually mean a decrease. And we wonder why we’re so screwed.

Obama’s billion dollar hypocrisy

There is nothing that reminds me that the sun has come up and we have entered another day like a democrat complaining about millionaires. We’ve all come to expect the constant refrain of rich bashing whenever democrats feel the need to deflect from their job performance. This is an expected and accepted part of American heritage at this point.

The most visible example of this idiocy recently is the Obama campaign’s singling out of Romney donors, aka the enemies list. We’ve come to a point where the President of the United States is comfortable naming rich people, using some variant of the “less-than-reputable” accusation, and acting as if that makes their political enemies into enemies of the state.

But, lost in this rich person vilification is the truth. That President Obama is President today because of his insanely large financial advantage over John McCain in 2008.

Imagine the balls you have to possess to seriously accuse Republicans of having too many millionaire donors and abusing the campaign finance system when you are President precisely because you outspent your opponent by over $500 million dollars. I had forgotten the gap was that ridiculous, and other outside spending surely cushioned it, but Obama outraised McCain $771 million to $239 million.

In that race, Obama raised an astonishing $771 million while McCain brought in $239 million — a total that included roughly $85 million in public financing funds for the general election.

 

In reality, McCain managed to only raise $154 million before matching funds, which I dare say is insanely pathetic. If nothing else, that should shut up every GOP insider when they say we should choose the least inspiring most moderate republican in the race every four years. At least those evil tea party extremist bastards can raise money.

On the other side, Obama broke his promise to take federal matching funds , broke his promise to hire lobbyists and other power players, and embraced the big money donors he vilifies.

Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, media mogul Fred Eychaner, Pfizer executive Sally Susman, Stoneyfield Farms president and CEO Gary Hirschberg, and Microsoft executives Suzi Levine and John Frank. Several have each raised more than half a million dollars for 2012, according to estimates provided by Obama’s campaign.

Let us not forget when George Clooney and his Hollywood friends helped him raise 15 million in one dinner.

 

And you better have rich friends with big wallets, when you need to raise a billion dollars on the back of hypocrisy.

Since launching his campaign about 13 months ago, Obama has held more fundraisers than most recent presidents combined, bringing in $233 million from big donors so far.

Contrast this to Obama version 1.0, when he used to disparage fancy dinners with five digit per place price tags for the ultra elite:

“The convention’s for sale, right. You got these $10,000-a-plate dinners and Golden Circles Clubs. I think when the average voter looks at that, they rightly feel they’re locked out of the process. They can’t attend a $10,000 breakfast and they know that those who can are going to get the kind of access they can’t imagine.” 

By the way, the price tag for the Clooney-Hollywood dinner was $40,000 a plate. Four times the amount he said gets you “access” that you “can’t imagine.”

You’re right Mr. 2006 Obama. The average voter does feel locked out. Thanks for dead bolting the door shut.

Play the Obama’s life history multiple choice challenge!

We know that Barack Obama’s relationship to the truth can occasionally be a bit distant.

But have you been able to trace the lies? Today’s question is—How does the president really feel about being named Barack Hussein Obama in America?

Does he
A) Think the American people are such hate mongers that they will ignore his incredible job performance because they are so uncomfortable with someone with a different sounding name?
B) Think America is the land of opportunity, and his parents specifically gave him a different sounding name because the American people simply don’t care about such surface issues?
C) Think his parents believed the country couldn’t handle a name as different as Barack, so they changed it to help him fit in?

Think about it….

Time’s up!
If you answered A—you’re right!
When asked whether he thought the upcoming election would be tight last week, he responded, “When your name is Barack Obama, it’s always a tight race.”

But wait—if you answered B—you’re also right!

In his legendary 2004 speech that introduced him to the country, he said that his parents “would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.”

But, guess what—if you answered C—you’re right too!

In his book, Dreams from my Father, he described how he didn’t use the name Barack because his parents wanted him to “fit in.”
“So why does everybody call you Barry?” “Habit, I guess. My father used it when he arrived in the States. I don’t know whether that was his idea or somebody else’s. He probably used Barry because it was easier to pronounce. You know—helped him fit in. Then it got passed on to me. So I could fit in.” (pg.104)

You see, when Obama is President—everyone truly is a winner. Re-elect President Obama—if for no other reason—so he has time to work his name into Gerald Ford’s biography.

Which states does Obama’s gay marriage announcement affect in the election?

Before we begin, bask in the immense bravery our President showed yesterday by backing gay marriage right after it crossed the 50% support barrier.

But, while same sex marriage now enjoys more favorability than ever, it’s still not the gigantic election issue most in the media present it as.

Near the bottom of the list are some of the hot-button social issues. Just 28% say that gay marriage is a very important issue, and 34% rate birth control as a top issue.

 

Gay marriage finishes last on the priority list of Americans, even behind the completely manufactured issue of birth control—which is controversial to almost exactly no one.

 

But, while Obama’s announcement will surely help in fundraising, how will it affect the election in key swing states?

 

Swing states where it helps Obama

 

Colorado – gay marriage favored 53-40 in one poll, 47-40 in another

New Hampshire – gay marriage favored 51-38

Swing states where it hurts Obama

North Carolina – gay marriage opposed 61-31

Ohio –  gay marriage opposed 52-32

Virginia — gay marriage opposed 53-34

Florida – gay marriage opposed 53-37, another poll 58-35

Missouri – gay marriage opposed 59-32

Indiana — Polling is sparse in Indiana on gay marriage, but most pollsters aren’t even calling this a swing state for 2012.  Polls have Romney up by 9 points.

Michigan – gay marriage opposed 53-35

Swing states with little effect

Iowa — gay marriage favored 46-45

Nevada — gay marriage favored 45-44

New Mexico – gay marriage favored 45-43

Pennsylvania – gay marriage favored 52-37, another shows the opposite 51-38 opposed

Wisconsin – polling is mixed here as well, one poll shows marriage at minus 6, one shows it at plus 2, another shows it at minus 20, which seems way out of line with the others.

So, what is the result of all that?  In 2008, Obama beat McCain in electoral votes 359-179.  If you give Romney the one Nebraska electoral vote Obama snagged, and move the states that Obama’s new position hurts him significantly while keeping everything else the same—Romney wins the electoral vote 282-256.  However, that includes a highly questionable win for Romney in Michigan.  It also includes a complete sweep, with no states bucking the trend, and essentially no room for error whatsoever.

But don’t worry your pretty little head with that.  Instead, enjoy the colorful beauty of a Romney victory…

UPDATE: Ron Paul Conspiracy Theory in Critical Condition

UPDATE: Bullet dodged.

Many of you are familiar with my Ron Paul baby conspiracy theory, which goes a little something like this:

–Ron Paul doesn’t care about the Republican Party. (He actually held a press conference including the Green Party candidate in 2008 to encourage people to avoid voting for the D or the R.)

–Ron Paul doesn’t think there’s much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats, therefore he doesn’t see a Mitt Romney victory over Barack Obama as all that important.

–Ron Paul is old and isn’t running for congress anymore. This is essentially his last political act.

–Ron Paul obviously is not winning the Republican nomination, but will still raise a lot of money.

–Ron Paul never completely rules out a third party run.

–Ron Paul will drop out of the Republican race at the last minute, walk into the Libertarian convention, and run as their presidential candidate.

I call it my baby conspiracy theory, because I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was going to happen, and I have to stretch on certain aspects of the theory, while ignoring some other evidence to make it work. In other words, I don’t take it that seriously.

But, I do think it could happen, and would essentially hand the presidency to Barack Obama for four more years. Some people have suggested that Paul might wind up running as an independent, but the ballot access rules make an independent run such a pain, that I don’t think he’d go that route. On the other hand, the Libertarian Party offers ballot access in close to 50 states automatically. It also offers a convention format that would basically allow him to stroll in whenever he wants and become the nominee, assuming he could win a vote among hardcore libertarian activists.(Is there even a question he’d win that?)

As his last major political act, I think Paul could quite likely believe that introducing his ideas on a stage bigger than ever before could be worth the political hits he’d take. Could he win? No, but he could get in the debates, and perform as well as any third party candidate since Perot. That might be enough for him. (The only thing really stopping this would be fear for his son Rand’s career. Republicans will surely punish him, fair or not, if daddy goes down this road.)

Well, luckily—the faint highlight of a conspiracy theory is beginning to fade. This weekend is the Libertarian convention. So, if Monday’s news is not littered with reports of a Ron Paul third party candidacy—we’ve dodged that mythical bullet.

According to some correspondence with Libertarian Party insiders, Ron Paul would have to make his move in the next couple of days, collect his tokens (that’s how they vote), and then win the nomination Saturday. If not, they pick somebody else like Gary Johnson, and Ron is left to try to influence the GOP platform at the convention and leave the long term message tied to his son Rand.

I watched the Libertarian convention last year, and I assume it will be on CSPAN again this weekend. It is an interesting event to say the least. Check it out, and see if Mitt Romney clears his most immediate hurdle on the way to the White House. Conspiracy theorists unite!

Finally! The legal community moves to lessen sentences on child pornographers!

Yes, it’s the move we’ve all been waiting for.   It’s become an American tradition: you gather with your friends for a barbecue and the conversation inevitably strays to the unfairness of the sentencing of those convicted of child porn.

“Those penalties for watching child porn are just too harsh!  Who’s with me? Pass the macaroni salad.”

It’s amazing, but true.  This is the opinion of the legal community at the moment.   They apparently believe that the problem with Congress is that they keep on increasing the penalty for being caught with child porn. How horrific.

…federal judges and public defenders say repeated moves by Congress to toughen the penalties over the past 25 years have badly skewed the guidelines, to the point where offenders who possess and distribute child pornography can go to prison for longer than those who actually rape or sexually abuse a child.

What is their argument?  It actually seems legitimate on the surface—people who get caught watching child porn are sometimes receiving sentences that are longer than those who are actually molesting children.  Obviously, both crimes are hideous—but I don’t know if there’s anyone out there who thinks people watching the child porn should be in jail longer than the people creating it.

the average sentence for a federal child pornography offense in 2010 was higher than all other offenses except murder and kidnapping. Indeed, the average was about six months higher than for sexual abuse offenders.

This, however, is where common sense leaves the conversation.  There are two ways to right this situation:

A)   Make the sentences of child molesters longer.

B)   Make the sentences of child pornography connoisseurs shorter.

Guess which one they want to do?  If you guessed B, then you know America!

In a 2010 survey of federal judges by the Sentencing Commission, about 70 percent said the proposed ranges of sentences for possession and receipt of child pornography were too high. Demonstrating their displeasure, federal judges issued child porn sentences below the guidelines 45 percent of the time in 2010, more than double the rate for all other crimes.

Troy Stabenow, an assistant federal public defender in Missouri, said the judges’ resistance to the sentencing guidelines was “pretty courageous,”

“They’re doing it knowing they’re likely be lambasted in the media,” he said. “They wouldn’t be doing it unless they really believe a lot of typical offenders they see are not the menace that people assume they are.”

Allow me to lambaste.  I agree, you should go to jail longer for sexually abusing a minor, than downloading a picture of it.  But, the issue here is not that child porn users are punished too harshly.  It’s that child molesters are punished far too leniently.  From An Inconvenient Book , page 181

“Three years, that’s how long the average convicted child molester spends in prison. They receive an average of a seven year sentence, but only three of those years are actually spent in jail.”

Three years?  Seriously?  Make that thirty years (or forever) instead, and magically those child porn sentences start looking a lot more reasonable.  Instead we’re looking to rebrand pedophiles as “minor-attracted” individuals ” and whining about the trials and tribulations of your neighborhood child porn viewer.

Congress sucks, utterly and completely.  But increasing the penalties on child molesters is not the area they deserve criticism in.

Next Blog Post

  Read Story »