By now most everyone is aware of the comments Ms. Garofalo made regarding those Americans that are fed up with taxes, government waste, intrusions into privacy and are uniting against the bailouts and Barack Obama’s health care scheme.  She feels in her infinite wisdom that if you are opposed to Barack Obama’s policies, it’s because you’re racist.

I’m not afraid of being called a racist.  Those who don’t know me have called me many things over the course of my life.  Being called a name doesn’t make it true. And I’m not some thin-skinned twit that lets words and vapid arguments get to me.  But I thought it might be somewhat educational, as well as entertaining, to delve into the twisted logic that liberals such as Ms. Garofalo use in order to come up with these inane conclusions and spew those stupid comments.

First let’s get one thing established and out of the way.  Liberalism and the support of socialistic and fascist ideals is not something that is inherently black.  If it were, then Hitler would have necessarily been a black man.  The same would have to be true with Stalin and Mao.  Furthermore, all blacks would have to adhere to those principles.  Likewise, all whites would have to be against them.  Only then it could seriously be referred to as a racial disagreement.  I know this is being somewhat simplistic, but if I get too intellectual about it any liberals reading this would get lost.

Under Janeane Garofalo’s logic, in order for her to agree with Barack Obama she needs to be black herself.  The only other logical conclusion following this path is that she actually disagrees with Barack Obama and is therefore a racist, but is just too afraid to come out and admit it. Additionally, any blacks that disagree with a white man are by definition racists.

At this point we run into the problem of what to do with the blacks that don’t agree with other blacks, or the whites that don’t agree with other whites. When you look at the disagreements she had with George W. Bush, and things she called him, since they are both white it obviously couldn’t have been because of racism.  It would have had to been due to sexism on her part.  But we still have that annoying issue with not all women thinking the same, or all men having identical ideals. 

Here comes the great liberal answer to those pesky situations.  Blacks that don’t agree with liberal philosophies are not really black.  Apparently white men and women that disagree are also not really white, or female I would have to assume.  What passes for liberal logic tends to vaporize when truth is introduced.  So what we’re left with is what conservatives knew all along. The debate is about ideologies, not race or gender.  Unfortunately for liberals, their ideology is based on emotion, not thought, therefore they can’t win honest debates of ideas.  That is why they concocted this fanciful rant about who is or isn’t true to their race based on the individual’s opinion.

Ms. Garofalo has also made a statement opining that black republicans must suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome, inferring that they have developed a loyalty to their captor, the Republican Party.  Ms. Garofalo cannot make that statement and be considered a true student of history.  If any party is holding black Americans hostage, it’s the Democrats.  It was the Republicans that led the charge on abolishing slavery and establishing civil rights for African-Americans.  The Democrats fought to keep slavery legal and battled against every civil rights bill presented until President Johnson persuaded his party to go along with the Republicans on civil rights.  Even then the southern Democrats tried to filibuster the legislation.  The party as a whole has been trying to keep the blacks on the plantation ever since.

So we’re left with the original question asked in the title of this article.  Is Janeane Garofalo a racist, sexist or just an idiot?  She agrees with some of the black population so she isn’t racist.  She agrees with a portion of the male population, so she isn’t a sexist.  Logically speaking we're apparently left with the fact that Janeane Garofalo is just another left wing, liberal idiot.

I watched and listened to Judge Napolitano today on Sean Hannity's show talking about the Gates Gate incident.  Normally, I have to say that I agree with the good Judge the vast majority of the time, but in this case I just can't.  The gist of Judge Napolitano's argument was twofold. First, he argued that the arrest of Professor Gates was done illegally because the police cannot enter his home without his permission absent a warrant. The second point was that a person cannot be arrested for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace on their own property.  I respectfully disagree with both points.

Let's take the incident from the start, and from a law enforcement officer's tactical point of view.  Let's say that I get a call to respond to a residence regarding a possible burglary in progress involving two suspects.  I arrive at the scene and attempt to make contact with an individual inside.  My first option is to get that individual to come outside and properly identify himself. Why do I want him to come out?  Because there were two people seen entering.  I don't know if he is one of the suspects, or is a victim under duress from the unseen suspects.  If he is in fact the property owner, once outside and away from possible coercion, then I can determine from him if anyone else is in the home and what may have happened.

If the person is uncooperative and refusing to provide identification, then my strategy has to change.  I need to go inside and identify the individual. This is more dangerous for both the officers and the potential homeowner and I dare say not the preferred option.  Now, according to Judge Napolitano's opinion, this is where the police should have left. So apparently all a burglar has to do is say he's the owner and tell the police to scram. Imagine what would have happened if they would've left and it turned out the two were actually burglars and stole everything in the house after the police left them in there?  Even worse, what if the good Professor was under duress at the time from the two suspects and they killed him after the police left?

Judge Napolitano's opinion certainly would apply to a case in which Professor Gates had been positively identified as the owner, or in this case the renter, of said property prior to the police entering the home.  However, as we now know, Professor Gates was not cooperating, refusing to come outside and identify himself at first.  Once the police were able to obtain identification from Professor Gates, they apparently needed to contact authorities at Harvard to verify his claim.  That leads me to suspect that his driver's license may not have had the right address, otherwise contacting Harvard would have been unnecessary.

As to the second part about the actual arrest, Judge Napolitano seems to think that as long as someone is on their own property they cannot be arrested for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct.  Really?  If my neighbor wants to play his stereo at 100 decibels at any time of the day or night, there's nothing that can be done?  People in their front yard can scream and shout and be vulgar, drawing a crowd, and nothing can be done?  Let's be real, Judge.  Professor Gates caused a disturbance while interfering with the lawful duties of the police officers present, and drew a small crowd of onlookers by his actions.  From what I've read in Massachusetts law and the Constitution, there is nothing that prevents an arrest being made under those circumstances.

Perhaps Judge Napolitano was looking at the case without all the information needed to make the right conclusion.  I would hope if he had the whole story, he would come to a different opinion.