Today, the Supreme Court will consider whether some of this country’s most despicable human beings, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, have a constitutional right to be rude.  Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, Phelps and his chromosome challenged followers have been protesting at the funerals of brave soldiers killed during duty.  Carrying signs that proclaim “God is glad you are dead” and other wonderfully sentimental and respectful slogans, Fred is delighted that he has recieved so much press for his church and their hateful messages as a result of these protests.

The first thing that comes to mind when you see these people is “who in their right mind would actually reproduce with them”?  But right after that, I find myself wondering how, as an allegedly religious person, you can be so uncaring and disrespectful, that you don’t have a second thought about wrecking a soldier’s funeral.  Imagine the pain of burying your son, then imagine a group of possibly inbred religious fanatics who hate gays piling on and tell you that he deserved it.

The question for the court is whose rights are more important.  Does the right to Free Speech trump the right to a private, undisrupted chance to say goodbye for these families?  Those who stand on the side of Free Speech are the same ones who will tell you that muslims should have the right to decline full body screening at our airports.  “It’s their religious right”, they will say.  So, don’t these families who are burying their dead have the religious right to a sacred, honorable funeral that is uninterrupted by a bunch of far right crazies waving signs demeaning their child?  Or is the right to be rude what we all have to stand for because of the Constitution?

Since I have taken constant shots at our President and his compulsive book writing addiction, I guess I have to ask the same question about the new darling of the Republican party, Senator Scott Brown.  Today we learned that Brown has secured the services of  Bob Barnett, literary agent to the stars when it comes to politics, the man who secured multi-million dollar book deals for Sarah Paylin and Hillary Clinton, among others.  Does “Scotty too hotty” have the life experience to warrant a memoir?  Does the man that fed up voters overwhelmingly sent to Washington with a message for this President, and this Congress, really have the time to be spending hours with a ghost writer, recounting his years playing hoops for Wakefield High, posing for Cosmopolitan magazine’s centerfold, and regaling us with tales of Ayla’s run-ins with Simon Cowell?  I think its a mistake.

Don’t get me wrong.  Jack Kennedy learned that having a best selling book when you are running for President gives the reading public the chance to get to know you as a candidate.  “Profiles in Courage” introduced a lot of voters to JFK, and his wartime experience.  Not a bad move.  You can say the same about John McCain, and his ”Faith of My Fathers”, which was an incredible story.  I think you can make the case that McCain at least, being somewhere around 112 when he ran, had a bit more “life experience” to share than Scott Brown does.  That doesn’t mean that Brown, who must be wearing earplugs to avoid the constant whispers of advisors telling him what he must do right now  to be President in 2012, shouldn’t consider a memoir as a way to introduce himself to the “thirsty for Brown juice” American public.  It just means that the voters who sent him to Washington might not find that to be the best use of his time.

The truly fickle voters of Massachusetts used Scott Brown to send a message to Washington.  Will they be upset if that message is delivered in a memoir for which Brown is paid 7 or 8 million dollars?  Will the man in the truck from Wrentham ruin that carefully crafted image if he signs the deal and writes his version of  ”The Audacity of Hope”?  What do you think?  After all, you voted for him.

I still hesitate when I start to write about it.  Am I allowed to call it The Superbowl or do I have to refer to it as the “Big Game in Miami”?   Either way, you have to be happy for Drew Breese, The Saints, the people of New Orleans, etc etc.  I am, however, still trying to figure our just what one particular “Big Game” commercial really means.

Audi’s “Green Police” commercial, which you can watch here, caught me off guard right away.

I’m a Cheap Trick fan (“Surrender” is on my top 20 songs of all time list), so as soon as I heard the music, I was paying close attention.  And I was laughing at the concept right until the end.  It’s scary how believable it is.  Sometime, in the not so distant future, you may have the “Green Police” knocking down your door and taking you in because you still aren’t using biodegradeable 4.2 watt recycled light bulbs outside your lavish, wasteful mansion.

But as the spot ended, still laughing, I was trying to figure out what I was actually laughing at.  And I’m not so sure it’s that funny.  We’ve reached a point in this country where a major auto manufacturer is using the fear of a government enviromental police force to sell cars!  That’s how scared we’ve been into “going green”.  The fact that Audi knows a considerable amount of their potential customers will watch that ad, and be scared into buying the latest “enviro friendly” vehicle is kind of scary.  I’m sure you’ve experienced the same not so subtle pressure that I have.  You walk into the break room at work, grab a styrofoam cup to make some coffee and turn around to face the horrified scares and ridicule of your “greener” co-workers.  Or your kids come home from school and repeat the mantra that was drilled into your head about how the valuable resources you’re throwing away every day with your wasteful light bulbs!  Now, Audi has figured out how scared we are by the prospect of the “green police” and they’ve decided to use it to sell automobiles.

When Martha Coakley (or “Marsha” as her good friend Patrick Kennedy likes to call her) awoke after defeating Michael Capuano in the Democratic Primary last fall, it is clear that she most likely looked in the mirror, congratulated herself, and determined that she had just been anointed the next Senator from Massachusetts.  After all, she was a democrat running in a state that’s so blue it was the only one to vote for Senator George McGovern in the ‘72 election.  After that, she seemingly went in to hiding, making several key mistakes that have created a race which could lead to what George Stephanopoulos calls “the upset of the century”.  In examining her five big mistakes, one must ask if they came to be because of her arrogance or ignorance?

1) The Finances.  In early November, Choke-ly was forced to apologize for her “honest mistake” when it came to the required financial reporting all candidates must make.  Seems Martha had failed to mention a $200,000 savings account belonging to her husband when listing her personal assets as “zero”.  She arrogantly believed that no one would bother checking to see if she was hiding something.

2) The Terrorists.  When Martha said of Afghan terrorists, in a televised debate, “they’re gone.  They’re not there anymore”, it demonstrated her incredible ignorance of a simple fact Americans have been, unfortunately, living with every day: the Taliban is harboring terrorists in Afghanistan and they are killing our soldiers.

3) Fenway Park.  (This is a two-parter.)  It is ignorance when you insult Red Sox fans anywhere in New England.  Martha did it twice.  When asked about her apparent campaign strategy of avoiding the grinding meet n’ greet strategy of most campaigns, she replied “as opposed to standing outside Fenway Park, in the cold, shaking hands?”.  (Which was a knock on her opponent, who had done just that.)  As if that weren’t enough, Friday night she went on the radio and called Curt Schilling a “Yankee Fan”.  It is arrogance when you have determined that the “D” beside your name guarantees you a win, and you therefore don’t actually have to stand outside, in the cold, and meet any of the dirty voters who might actually pull the lever for you.

4) The Lobbyists.  With just days to go before the big election, and criticism mounting about the lack of time she had spent with the voters, what did Marsha do?  Hopped on a plane and headed to Washington DC for a fundraiser with the very Health Care company lobbyists she claimed to fight against!  It is arrogance to believe that voters, who are sick and tired of the “insider influence” in Washington, won’t see through this shameless schilling (no pun intended) for cash from the very enemy you claim to fight against.

5) The Phones.  With the primary victory behind her, and believing that all that remained was the swearing-in ceremony, Coakley made the ignorant decision to stop identifying supporters on the phone, leaving herself, and her campaign, with no election day phone data base to call and convince to get out and vote.

Honorable mention:

1) It’s spelled “Massachusetts”.  When running attack ads, it is best to spell the name of the state you are running them in correctly.

2) Thug life.  If your paid thugs are going to push people over who are asking tough questions, you should make sure it is just another insignificant voter, and not a member of the national press.  And always make sure it’s not on video.

Arrogance or Ignorance?  You decide.  And let me know what you think…while we wait for the votes to be counted.

When you sit down to watch your favorite television show tonight, and instead are assaulted with a barrage of Martha Coakley attack ads scaring you into fearing that Scott Brown does not care about rape victims, please consider the case of convicted child rapist Keith Winfield of Melrose.

First, some background.  As Martha and Scott compete for the Senate seat the Kennedy family has so graciously decided to share with the rest of the us, much has been made of Scott Brown’s sponsorship of an amendment in 2005 that would have protected the religious freedom rights of emergency room doctors and nurses when it came to contraception for rape victims.  You see, some catholic doctors and nurses, at catholic hospitals, object to giving abortions.  Go figure.  However, the amendment he sponsored did not pass, and he voted in favor of the original bill providing emergency care for rape victims anyway.  Shockingly, that fact is not in Martha’s ad.

When you contrast that with Martha Coakley’s lack of concern for a 23 month old rape victim during the same year,  you have a concrete example of which of the two cares less.  In October of that year, Keith Winfield of Melrose raped his 23 month old niece with a hot object, which police believed was a curling iron.  Martha, who was the Middlesex County DA at the time, oversaw the Grand Jury, which reviewed the evidence and took NO ACTION.  After a criminal complaint and intense pressure from the mother, charges were filed.  At which point, Martha’s office RECOMMENDED NO CASH BAIL, and that this diddler be released on PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE for trial.

In 2007, long after Martha was on to bigger and better things, Winfield was convicted and sentenced to two life terms.  (Guess he turned out to be pretty dangerous after all, eh Martha?)

It is certainly shameful for Martha Coakley to try to paint Scott Brown as a person who does not care about rape victims, but it is horrendous to let a man go free and walk amongst the rest of us who raped his 2 year old niece with a curling iron.  If you are going to vote Tuesday based on who cares more about rape victims, I think you have your answer.

Just when I thought he couldn’t say anything dumber, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has outdone himself with the comments he made about President Obama back in 2008.  We now know that Reid felt that Obama was a worthy candidate for President because he was a “lighter skinned” african-american who didn’t speak with the “negro dialect” unless he wanted to.

In addition to being stupid, these are insulting comments that all Americans should be bothered by.  Senator Reid has a long history of saying foolish things.  He once remarked that visitors to the Capital Building “smell”.  He also tried to use the race card when it came to the health care debate last year, likening Republicans who were against it to those who were against ending slavery.  Yeah, ok.

Turns out what Senator Reid says in public, and what he says in private, are two completely different things.  Apparently, in his opinion, the “negro dialect” is a negative and Americans wouldn’t vote for someone who spoke it.  He also must believe that Americans would much prefer a lighter skinned candidate to a darker skinned one.  We’ll have to ask the Senator how you tell the difference.

As usual, the “double standard dance” of the Democrats has begun.  Unlike Trent Lott, who was forced out of his leadership role when he voiced his support for the late Strom Thurmond’s presidential campaign of 1948 at the Senator’s 100th birthday, Dems are rallying to the aid of good ol’ boy Harry, because they sense the loss of a precious Senate seat in November.  The chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Former Rep. Harold Ford, called the comments “an unusual set of words”.  What?  Mr. Ford, an african-american, must not speak “negro dialect”, because he is, inextricably, standing by Senator Reid.

One thing is clear:  If a white republican had made the same comments, Reid and Pelosi would be rallying their drones and demanding he step down.  The Democrats have tried to make themselves the party of racial parity…now they ought to stand by the promise.  Harry Reid, just like Trent Lott, has to go.

The next “unfortunate set of words” out of his mouth should be “I resign”.

Maybe you heard last week’s on-air exchange with State Representative Bob Hargraves, in which the elected official ended the call by telling me I could “go to hell”. If you didn’t, listen to it here.

Mr Hargraves, a 70-something year old who has served in the public employ for more decades than most of us have been alive, took umbrage at my questions about why he was one of 16 Representatives REFUSING to take a furlough as part of a program that would save the Commonwealth over $600,000.   His explanation was that it was going to cost him $500 a year when he retired and his pension was reduced.  And he sounded to me like he was outraged that anyone would even dare have the audacity to ask him about it.

This is one of the nightmares in a state that does not force term-limits on it’s elected officials and pays it representatives as full time employees.  They become arrogrant and empowered.  The simple logic says that if Mr. Hargraves, and his compadres on Beacon Hill, are going to lay off state employees, force others to take furloughs, and impose a sales tax increase during one of the most fiscally trying times of the last 75 years, they ought to be willing to accept some sacrifice themselves.  Apparently, during that phone call Thursday, “Go to Hell Hargraves” did not agree.

That’s why I’m pleased to tell you that the listeners of the Hill-man Morning Show, and the voters of Massachusetts, have one small victory to celebrate!  As reported in Sunday’s Lowell Sun, Bob agreed later that afternoon to take the furlough.  The Sun surmises that several of you reached out and let “Go To Hell Hargraves” know that you found his attitude, and his reluctance to be part of the solution, unfortunate.  To me, that’s a big win for Democracy.  We can speak out about these issues and we will be heard.  The message is:  if you are going to force state workers to take the five day furlough, you don’t get out of it because you’re an elected official and somehow, in your mind, better than them.  And you don’t get to tell anyone who asks about it to “go to hell”.

I bet Al Gore and Barack Obama are hoping this Tiger Woods story stays on the front page for the next few weeks, so they can continue the massive scam on the world that Carbon Taxing has become.

Why isn’t the mainstream media making a bigger deal out of Climategate?  Thanks to a whistleblower (now being investigated by Police, thank you very much) we know that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were caught using tricks to conceal a DECLINE in the temperatures of the Paleoclimate.  Where I come from, we call that fraud.  And the details couldn’t come at a better time!

You see, the world’s earth worshippers are gathering in Denmark to hack out details on a treaty that would find a way to tax and regulate the world’s most productive nations because they are allegedly commiting the horrendous crime of contributing to the rise in temperature that the world has been experiencing for quite some time.

How long, you ask?  According to Proffessor Ian Plimer, climate change has been going on regularly for about…oh…let’s see….567 Million years.  That’s why the same people who want to stop restaurants from giving you ice in your water glass, have been finding ways to hide the actual data on climate change.  They don’t want to stop the money train.

Before they meet and figure out how to CARBON TAX the global economy, can we please get to the bottom of this fraud?  I like ice in my water when I go to the Capital Grille and I like the fact that America is still somewhat able to compete when it comes to selling our goods in the global mall. 

Al Gore has been terrorizing SUV drivers for too long.  It’s time to shed some enviroment-friendly light on what is really going on.

After discussing it ALL MORNING, I came across some information that makes me think I owe “The General” an apology.  We all know that applying statistics to real life can give us great insight on making decisions and that’s what the nerds over at AdvancedNFLstats.com have done.  Turns out that statistically Belichick made the right call!

You can read it for yourself, but summing up: going for it on 4th down is successful 60% of the time.  Odds that Brady and Co. would have converted are much better than the odds that you punt to the Colts and they don’t score (47%).  I know it’s tough to take because there has to be someone to blame for last night, but the stats don’t lie.  Here’s a few others I came across while booking my plane tickets to Indianapolis for the AFC Championship game:

% odds that a cameraman getting too close to Bill Belichick after a devastating loss to the most annoying QB in the NFL will get knocked over by his security:  100%. Check the video:

% odds that the answer to today’s press conference question about whether he now wishes he had punted will be “no”: 100%

% odds that Eric Mangini was jumping for joy when the Colts scored that touchdown last night: 100%

% odds that Lawrence Maroney could gain a third hand in a cloning experiment gone awry and still not be able to hold on to the ball:  100%

% odds that Jet Coach Rex Ryan missed the call by Belichick to go for it last night because he was in the kitchen grabbing a snack:  100%

% odds that our beloved Patriots will bounce back and beat the Colts in the AFC championship:  Call me a homer, but I’m still going with 100%!

Do you think we will spend as much time investigating what the FBI, the Army, and the Federal Government knew about Major Nidal Hassan as we have spent focusing on what George Bush and the Government knew about September 11th?  I doubt it.

Senator Joe Lieberman has called for a congressional investigation into the details surrounding the Ft. Hood shootings and it should begin today.  And perhaps the outcome should be new practices instituted to deal with American soldiers of the Muslim faith.  There, I said it. 

Major Hassan himself suggested in 2007 that muslim soldiers should be released as conscientious objectors so they were not forced to fight against their muslim brothers.  In a power point presentation he made at Walter Reed Hospital to his fellow mental health workers, he wrote “we love death more then (sic) you love life”.

Yesterday, on his personal website, radical American Imam Anwar al-Awlaki (who Hassan was communicating with prior to the attacks) called the major ” a hero”, and said the only way a muslim can serve in the US Military “is to follow Nidal” and commit an act of terror.

Is the “War on Terror” a war against Islamic fundamentalists?  And if it is, would it not be best to give muslim’s serving the our military their walking papers?  Awlaki wrote yesterday that “American muslims who condemned the attack have commited treason against their religion”.  If that is so, can we trust that there are no muslims currently serving in the military who take that philosophy to heart and are challenged by the postition their religious beliefs place them in?

If the US were fighting a war on Catholic fundamentalists, would it be wise to investigate catholics serving in our military to determine if they had the resolve to fight against their religion?

Congress must give the military, the FBI and all other law enforcement agencies the go ahead to do away with concerns about Political Correctness, and investigate anyone, of any religion, who appears to be dangerous and might harbor anger against our country.  I would rather someone’s feelings get hurt than 13 brave members of our military are gunned down again.