Jackie almost had me convinced on this issue, since I’m usually in favor of letting people do whatever they want, regardless of whether it offends others. But the burqa is such a symbol of the oppression of women, I really can’t believe liberals are saying we need to be ‘tolerant’ of them. Isn’t tolerance what it’s all about? Is there anything ‘tolerant’ about burqas in the first place?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009368118_apeufrancesarkozyburqa.html

http://chattahbox.com/world/2009/06/20/france-eyes-banning-islamic-burqa-shrouds-liberation-or-oppression/

I’m especially surprised by feminists who are opposed to this ban. Shouldn’t they be applauding it, just as they applaud other increased freedoms for women? Read this interesting post on Feministe.us:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/22/banning-the-burqa-in-france/

I didn’t get to this on Thursday’s show, but at the end of the day, the whole controversy over David Letterman’s off-color comments about Sarah Palin and family is really all about RATINGS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31271743/

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/06/11/2009-06-11_are_viewers_dropping_ditching_conan_obrien_for_david_letterman.html

I can almost guarantee you that Letterman and his writers sat down and said, ‘how can we stir things up a bit?’ since Letterman’s show is in a head-to-head ratings race with Conan O’Brien’s show, and a shot of controversy always helps the ratings.

To take cheap shots at people’s families for the sake of ratings, though, is still unfair and, well, lame. But, it’ll probably work for him just the way he hoped — watch his ratings, and you’ll see.

Here’s the article I referenced at the beginning of the show:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/11/palin-says-letterman-a-threat-to-14-year-old-daughter-willow/

Apparently, the President is feeling the pressure of public dissatisfaction with his administration’s penchant for spending our tax dollars, so he’s now coming out with a new ‘Pay As You Go’ message (which isn’t new at all).

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0938720120090609

The fact that people are actually buying this and believing that Obama is serious about fiscal responsibility is disheartening. His administration, and the U.S. Congress, for that matter, has seemingly had no problems with spending billions upon billions upon billions thus far into his presidency, so why now is he lecturing Congress on spending? And what about this huge stimulus package — is it somehow exempt from this ‘fiscal responsibility’ talk?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090609/D98MRQU80.html

Read this op-ed from the Wall Street Journal on how the stimulus is going:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

It is good, though, to hear that more people are being critical of this administration than were initially. We’ll see if Obama sticks to his ‘PayGo’ guns on some upcoming decisions on war funding and healthcare.

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN08333615

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-Its-OK-to-borrow-to-pay-apf-15483626.html?.v=13

I’m all for Bellingham being a ‘Sanctuary City’… that is, if it’s a sanctuary that offers me protection from parking tickets. I got one yesterday, after I parked for 2 minutes to jump out and snap a photo. When I returned, there were not one, but TWO ‘meter maid’ little 3-wheel scooter-cars zooming away from the area. LAME.

But, in all seriousness, am I missing something on this sanctuary city issue? Since when do certain cities choose to disregard certain laws — federal-level laws — as they see fit? What if Bellingham became a ’sanctuary city’ for pot smokers? Shouldn’t it be illegal for a city to say it won’t enforce the laws of the land?

Furthermore, the Bellingham City Council would never, NEVER hold a “Public Discussion” on a conservative-generated issue. With even more certainty, I can say the current city council would never, NEVER EVER approve a resolution that supported a conservative viewpoint (let’s say, for instance, one that encouraged business in the community).

Read what the local Republicans have to say here: http://www.whatcomgop.com/

Now, so you can be informed, go read what the other side is saying: http://www.sanctuary-city.org/

I trust you’ll see, upon visiting their site, how little sense this whole idea makes.

A website is vowing to post  the names of people signing petitions for the state referendum to overturn the ‘everything but marriage’ bill ONLINE.

Read the story here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009286787_webpartnership01.html

I admit, it’s legal, but it shouldn’t be happening. People signing petitions shouldn’t fear intimidation for putting their name down on a petition — it goes against our American sensibility of fairness and privacy in democracy.

This group (who you can check out online at http://whosigned.org/) should be ashamed of what they’re doing.

A couple of callers on PM Bellingham tonight wanted more info on how to sign a petition for Referendum 71. Here’s a website with more info on that:

http://protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-press-releases/130-protect-marriage-wa-organizes

I noticed that locally, Cindy Honcoop with the Washington Eagle Forum is involved with the effort, so I’m guessing you could contact her.