A team of attorneys from the American Freedom Law Center today asked a court in New York for a preliminary injunction that would uphold the principle of free speech in the advertisements on the transit authority’s facilities.

A lawsuit had been filed last fall over the refusal by the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority to accept advertising that calls for support for civilized man and opposition to the savage acts of terrorism the world has known in recent years.

Officials with the AFLC said today they’d asked for a preliminary injunction to protect freedom of speech as the case works its way through the system.

“The MTA’s ‘demeaning speech’ policy is operating here as a viewpoint-based restriction on our clients’ speech,” said David Yerushalmi, senior counsel for the organization. “Viewpoint discrimination is the most egregious form of content discrimination under the First Amendment.”

The organization is working on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The request for an injunction went to the U.S. District Court for the southern district of New York.

“Here, the MTA would rather violate a law-abiding, private citizen’s right to freedom of speech than offend those who support violent jihad against Israel and others,” said Robert Muise, the AFLC’s senior counsel. “The American Freedom Law Center is committed to fighting this pernicious form of civilization jihad that undermines our fundamental rights.”

The ad that was refused by the transit authority, which has carried a wide range of commercial, political and religious messages on its facilities, was the statement, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel.”

The ad was offered as a response to an earlier ad run by a pro-Palestine group.

But it rejected the pro-Israel ad, “claiming that it violated its policy against displaying ‘images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.’”

According to the papers filed with the federal court, the MTA, by policy and practice, intentionally dedicates its advertising space on vehicles to expressive conduct.

Under that policy, it has allowed the message, “Muslims for Peace, Love for All, Hatred for None … WHY ISLAM.”

It also permitted, “A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?”

And it allowed the pro-Palestine, “Be on our side. We are the side of peace and justice. End U.S. military aid to Israel.”

The AFDI submitted its proposed ad to CSB Outdoor, which is an agent for the MTA. It was a political message that responded directly to the pro-Palestine message posted earlier.

“The anti-Israeli advertisement suggests that Israel’s military is the impediment to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians and that U.S. military aid to Israel also acts as an impediment to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. In other words, the anti-Israel advertisement blames Israel, its military, and U.S. military aid to Israel as the cause of Palestinian terror directed against innocent civilians in Israel and abroad.”

The subsequent ad request from AFDI said there is no comparison or equivalence
between “savage civilian-targeting violence and Israel’s civilized struggle for survival in a part of the world where civilized behavior is overshadowed by terrorism, despotism, and brutality.”

The MTA rejected the ad because of its “demeaning speech” policy.

But the real effect is that a viewpoint that the U.S. foreign policy supporting Israel in the face of savage violence is correct is being censored, officials said.

“The Constitution does not permit the government, in this case the MTA, to take sides on political issues by silencing one side of the debate,” Muise said.

In a commentary about the dispute, Geller wrote that similar issues have come up in Seattle, San Francisco and Washington.

“The ad is actually referring to the Islamic jihadists who are determined to destroy Israel. And they are savage,” she wrote. “Truth is radical. Morality is radical. But a genocidal ideology is not radical or savage.”

Her book, “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” also documents such situations.

“Tell me again why the word ‘savage’ is inaccurate. Everyone is shocked (shocked, I tell ya) by the use of the word savage for savages. As long as the Palestinian Authority continues its savage policy to foment violence and promote hatred, and teaches its children to hate, the number of young Muslims willing to blow themselves up or to slit Israeli throats will continue to increase. That is savage. The Palestinian Authority propaganda of ‘Holocaust denial, racial slurs, anti-Jewish epithets and glorification of terrorists’ is savage,” she wrote.

She cited as savagery: targeting civilians, terrorism against Jews, torture of hostages, the bloody hacking death of a family, Munich, and the “endless demonization of the Jewish people…”

“But we are supposed to tiptoe around the savages, so as not to enflame the savages,” she wrote. .

Prime Minister David Cameron will make an official visit to the US next month, the White House has said.

Mr Cameron and his wife Samantha will be in the US on 13-14 March.

A spokesman said President Barack Obama would welcome Mr Cameron to “highlight the fundamental importance of the US-UK special relationship”.

The two leaders will discuss the forthcoming Nato and G8 summits, as well as developments in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

‘Liberties and values’

The White House spokesman said: “The visit will highlight the fundamental importance of the US-UK special relationship and the depth of the friendship between the American people and the people of the United Kingdom, as well as the strong personal bond that has developed between the two leaders and their families.

“It will also be an opportunity to recall the valour and sacrifice of the US and British armed forces and their long tradition of standing shoulder to shoulder beside each other in defence of our liberties and shared values.

“The visit will underscore the strength of our economic links, which contribute to millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.”

The White House said issues such as Afghanistan, the Middle East, Iran, human rights and global economic stability and growth would be on the agenda.

“They will also review progress in the implementation of the various initiatives launched during the president’s state visit to the UK last year,” said the spokesman.

Troop withdrawal

Downing Street confirmed on Twitter that Mr Cameron and his wife had accepted the invitation to visit the White House.

A message from the official @Number10gov account said: “The Prime Minister and Mrs Cameron have accepted invitation from @whitehouse for official visit the US on 13th & 14th March.”

Downing Street said on Thursday that British troops would step back from their lead combat role in Afghanistan by the end of 2013.

Mr Cameron’s spokesman said UK and international troops would offer a “supporting combat role” in 2014.

The prime minister had previously said the UK’s military role in Afghanistan would be completed by the end of that year.

Mr Obama became the first US president to address members of both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall when he and wife Michelle were on a two-day state visit to the UK in May last year.

Mr Cameron made his first official visit to the US as prime minister in July 2010.

Argentina has accused David Cameron’s government of fanning the row over the Falklands Islands in an attempt to distract the British public from high unemployment.

He spoke as a small group of protesters marched on the UK embassy in Buenos Aires, burning a British flag. A branch of the British-owned bank HSBC was also attacked yesterday.

Tensions over the Falklands have been rising as the 30-year anniversary of the war between Argentina and Britain approaches.

The clashes came as Prince William arrived in the Falklands for a six-week stint with the Royal Air Force. Buenos Aires has labelled him a “conqueror” and called his deployment a “provocation”, but the UK has insisted it is merely routine.

London has also announced that it will deploy one of the country’s most lethal warships, the HMS Dauntless, to the area. Buenos Aires has accused the British government of trying to militarise the conflict.

The sabre-rattling has also been somewhat fuelled by the release of the new Meryl Streep film “The Iron Lady”, in which the actress portrays Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands war.

Argentine critics have praised Streep’s acting but panned the film itself. Film-goers in Buenos Aires shared their views.

“It didn’t fool me,” Mario Huguet, 75, a psychoanalyst who called Mrs Thatcher a word unfit for publication, said after seeing the premiere.

“It presents her as a senile grandmother, but the Argentine dictators also got to be old and pitiful.”

Argentina has received the backing of Latin American countries for its claim of sovereignty over the remote, wind-lashed islands, which were occupied by Britain in 1833.

The dispute erupted into warfare in April 1982 when Argentine troops seized the islands, only to be routed in a 74-day war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentines and 255 Britons.

Diplomatic friction between Argentina and Britain has intensified since 2010, when London authorized oil exploration in the waters near the islands.

Yesterday the Venezuelan government backed Argentina, saying it “is not alone in its legitimate claim to the right of sovereignty” over the islands.

“The decision to send a warship to the Falklands, along with the aggressive statements of Prime Minister David Cameron and of (Foreign Secretary) William Hague (…) show an unacceptable attitude” that “causes the rejection of the entire Latin American continent and the Caribbean,” a Venezuelan statement said.

In December, the South American Mercosur trading bloc agreed to prevent ships flying the Falklands flag from entering their ports.

Mercosur includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Venezuela has announced its intent to join the group.

The Department of Justice gun-tracing operation known as “Fast and Furious” originated in the first year of the Obama administration, when Mexico began complaining that its drug war was the responsibility of the United States.

Mexico calculated the U.S. could be blamed for the drug war because U.S. citizens create a market for the drug cartels by consuming drugs.

But even more ingeniously, Mexico began asserting that U.S. citizens were supplying the gun cartels with the weapons needed to fight the Mexican government in the drug war.

The gun-running, the Obama administration quickly realized, would be an excellent pretense under which to push for serious Second Amendment restrictions.

The only problem was there was no proof Mexico was right. How could the Department of Justice under the political direction of Attorney General Eric Holder prove that the guns the Mexican cartels used to kill thousands of Mexicans in the drug war were sold to the Mexican cartels by American gun dealers?

Under Fast and Furious, the Obama administration allowed weapons to be sold to suspected Mexican drug operatives so they could be traced to the higher echelons of the cartels. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran the operation, lost track of hundreds of weapons and many have been linked to crimes, including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Mexico blames the U.S.

On March 25, 2009, Mexico’s Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa gave an interview to Fox News in which she repeated Mexico’s claim:”It is a fact that 90 percent of the arms seized in Mexico come from the United States.”

She further to specified that the only way Mexico could control its drug war was if the U.S. limited gun exports to Mexico.

She continued, saying: “So, for that reason, we see this as an effort to help strengthen the application of the U.S. legislation that provides for the prohibitions of arms exports to a country in which those arms are prohibited.”

February 2009 appears to be the month in which the Obama administration decided Holder should be the point man championing Mexico’s argument.

On Feb. 26, 2006, Brent Lang writing in the “Political Hot Sheet blog on CBSNews.com reported that Holder in announcing the capture of more than 50 alleged members of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel told reporters he was in favor of reinstituting the ban on the sale of assault weapons to help Mexico fight its drug war.

Responding to a reporter’s question on gun regulations, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related charges that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

Holder had frequently called for restoring the Clinton administration-era ban on semi-automatic weapons.

According to Stephen Halbrook, a Ph.D. and a lawyer at the Independent Institute, Holder joined a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individual rights to bear arms.

In that 2008 case, the Supreme Court disagreed, deciding to overturn the District of Columbia handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds that reaffirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for private use not related to a state militia.

Holder gets the ball rolling

Other administration officials and prominent Democrats in Congress immediately picked up Holder’s assertion about U.S. guns being used in the Mexico gun war.

On her first trip to Mexico as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton told reporters accompanying her that the U.S. has “co-responsibility” for fueling an alarming spike in violence along the U.S. border with Mexico.

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” Clinton said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”

The assertion was repeated by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs.

“The drugs are coming north, and we’re sending money and guns south,” Durbin said. “As a result, these cartels have gained extraordinary power.”

Durbin claimed statistics from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proved 90 percent of guns seized in Mexican raids could be traced back to the United States.

Durbin further claimed Brookings Institute statistics demonstrated about 2,000 firearms cross the U.S. border into Mexico every day, as reported by CNN.

In his one-on-one interview with President Obama, broadcast on the CBS television “Meet the Press” show on March 29, 2009, correspondent Bob Schieffer repeated the claim, asking the president: “It’s my understanding that 90 percent of the guns that they’re getting down in Mexico are coming from the United States. We don’t seem to be doing a very good job of cutting off the gun flow. Do you need any kind of legislative help on that front? Have you, for example, thought about asking Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons?”

President Obama said the main thing needed was better law enforcement, backing away from the opportunity to ask for new federal legislation to limit the Second Amendment.

Where’s the proof?

Holder’s claim evidently was based on testimony given by William Hoover, an ATF assistant director for field operations.

Yet, a close examination of Hoover’s written statement to Congress shows that he argued “there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.”

That is very different from claiming that 90 percent of all the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the U.S.

Fox News pointed out that a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing because it is obvious from their markings that they did not come from the U.S.

“Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, a special agent of the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, told Fox News.

The claim that 90 percent of all the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the U.S. is now largely discredited> It’s even disavowed by the Obama administration, especially after William Newell, the head of the ATF bureau in Phoenix during Operation Fast and Furious, admitted making mistakes in investigations and giving testimony to Congress that “lacked clarity.”

Why bother with U.S. guns?

Mexican drug cartels have billions of dollars each year to buy weapons, including fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Fox News pointed out that Interpol documents Russian Mafia groups are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

Moreover, more than 150,000 soldiers have deserted the Mexican army in the last six years to join the drug cartels, with many taking their weapons with them. They include the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium. The Mexican government has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years that are unavailable in U.S. gun stores.

“So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown ‘straw’ buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?” reporters William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott of Fox News asked in an article published on FoxNews.com April 2, 2009.

An organization that helped craft President Obama’s environmental policies has recommended the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, purportedly as a method of silencing critics of the theory of global warming.

The Presidential Climate Action Project, or PCAP, last year released an extensive list of recommendations for the White House in a 75-page paper titled “Building the Obama Administration’s Climate Legacy.”

Primary among the PCAP’s recommendations is that the Department of Energy should join the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency in what is known as the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

The Partnership, which distributes over $1 billion in grants, says it aims to“help communities nationwide improve access to affordable housing, increase transportation options and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment.”

Another key recommendation in the report is the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, a former policy of the Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, which effectively made political talk radio unsustainable for any local station.

Reads the PCAP report: “National discourse today is tainted – and in some cases poisoned – by unbalanced ideological use of the public airwaves… To improve and better inform public discourse, it is time for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.”

Critics charge the Fairness Doctrine is as an attempt to regulate news and talk radio that violates First Amendment rights.

The University of Colorado-based PCAP draws up climate-policy recommendations for the White House and has been working with members of the Obama administration.

Following Obama’s victory in 2008, the PCAP began working with John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, to help the incoming president formulate an initial 100-day environmental agenda. Podesta is president and CEO of the highly influential Center for American Progress.

William S. Becker, the PCAP’s executive director, confirmed to WND in a November 2009 interview that his group’s initial proposals received a “very positive reception from the moment we delivered (the 100-day proposal) last November to John Podesta, co-chair of Obama’s transition team.”

“We continue to work with some colleagues inside the (Obama) administration, as well as continuing to push for bold action from the outside,” he said at the time.

Becker said the White House “adopted quite a few of our recommendations or variations of them.”

He cited a few examples of the influence of the PCAP and other environmental groups on Obama’s policies:

The PCAP recommended that the U.S. reach a bilateral climate deal with China prior to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The U.S. has since signed several agreements with China to share technology that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions.

The PCAP recommended an executive order that removed the gags from federal climate scientists. It became one of Obama’s first actions on environmental policy.

The PCAP recommended an overhaul of federal energy management to beef up efficiency requirements for federal agencies and to restore absolute carbon reduction targets that had been rescinded by the Bush administration. The Obama administration issued a new federal energy management order in October, including a requirement that agencies develop absolute targets for greenhouse-gas reductions.

The PCAP recommended, as did many others, that the Environmental Protection Agency embrace California’s vehicle emission standards and begin the process of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is doing both.

The PCAP recommended major budget increases for states and communities to engage in energy and climate actions and to weatherize the homes of low-income families. The recommendations were implemented in Obama’s stimulus package.

The PCAP describes itself as seeking to engage the “best thinking of America’s leaders in government, science and civil society to identify actions that will empower all elements of society to meet the challenges of energy security and climate change.”

The group actively promotes the theory of man-made global warming.

While the PCAP coordinates with the White House, WND previously exposed how Obama’s controversial former “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, is one of 20 members of the PCAP’s advisory board.

Jones’ name appeared on the group’s most recent recommendation paper.

Jones resigned in September 2009 after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Meanwhile, the PCAP is not alone in calling for the silencing of the critics of global warming theory.

As WND was first to report, just prior to his appointment as Obama’s so-called regulatory czar in 2009, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Sunstein’s official title is administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Among the beliefs Sunstein classified in his paper as a “conspiracy theory” is that man-made global warming is a deliberate fraud.

The Duke of Cambridge is to fly to the Falkland Islands for a six week tour of duty

HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, is due to set sail for the South Atlantic on her maiden mission in the coming months to replace frigate HMS Montrose.

Today it was confirmed that the Duke of Cambridge will begin his six-week deployment as a helicopter pilot earlier than expected. He will fly out from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, tonight.

He will be crewing one of two search-and-rescue helicopters on call 24 hours a day for missions flying out of a large British military base, 45 minutes from Stanley, the islands’ capital.

Argentina’s foreign ministry slammed Prince William’s visit, saying that the heir to the British throne would be arriving as a “conqueror.”

However, the Ministry of Defence stressed that the mission was routine and a Royal Navy spokesman rejected suggestions the decision to send the ultra-modern destroyer to the region represented an escalation of the UK’s position.

”The Royal Navy has had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic for many years. The deployment of HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces another ship on patrol,” he said.

David Cameron and Argentine President Cristina Fernandez have previously accused each other of ”colonial” behaviour.

Referring to the deployment of HMS Dauntless and William’s tour of duty as an RAF search and rescue pilot, Argentina’s Foreign Ministry last night said it ”rejected the British attempt to militarise (the) conflict”.

It also expressed regret that an heir to the throne would arrive wearing ”the uniform of a conqueror”.

”Governments should avoid the temptation of falling into a discourse … that aims to distract public attention from belt-tightening economic policies,” the ministry said in a statement.

Argentine official Sebastian Brugo Marco last year said the country could not ignore the ”political” implications of William’s deployment.

”It is one more provocative act that shows Britain’s military presence in a zone of peace where there is no armed conflict,” he said.

Following his remarks, the Chief of the Defence Staff denied that sending the Duke to the Falkland Islands was designed to provoke Argentina.

General Sir David Richards dismissed the claims, saying: ”I can absolutely tell you it wasn’t and isn’t designed to be.”

Gen Richards stressed William’s deployment was routine for an RAF Sea King pilot, pointing out Prince Harry was sent to Afghanistan as a forward air controller in 2008.

It has also emerged that UK Foreign Minister Jeremy Browne will be visiting the islands in June to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the war.

Mr Browne yesterday told the Commons the Government had resisted Tory calls for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination to be written into a new UK law.

He insisted legislation was unnecessary as he stressed the islanders’ ability to decide their own future was ”non-negotiable”.

Tory MP Guy Opperman had called for the islanders’ right to determine their own future to be enshrined in UK law.

The Duchess of Cambridge is to use Prince William’s tour of duty in the Falkland Islands to launch herself as a solo member of the Royal family

Since the royal wedding last April, she has carried out only one public engagement without Prince William.

That was when the Prince of Wales was forced to pull out of a charity dinner at Clarence House in October because he had to fly to Riyadh to pay his condolences to the Saudi royal family after the death of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. His “darling daughter-in-law” agreed to step into the breach.

The Royal Navy’s most sophisticated warship is being sent to the South Atlantic in a move that will send a powerful message to Argentina.

The Type 45 destroyer is the most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic ship in the world equipped with 48 Sea Viper missiles and the Sampson radar, which is more advanced than Heathrow air traffic control

The ship is in a league of its own in air defence able to track dozens of multiple targets

“It can shoot down Argentine fighters as soon as they take off from their bases,” said another Navy source. “This will give Buenos Aires serious pause for thought.”

The deployment, expected in late March, comes as Argentina has stepped up its sabre rattling over possession of the islands with a ban on all Falkland registered ships in South American ports.

David Cameron has responded that the sovereignty of the islands is not for negotiation.

Sending the £1 billion Dauntless on her first mission to the area will reinforce Britain’s position although it will cause difficulties for the Foreign Office which is trying to downplay the rhetoric.

Admiral Lord West, the former First Sea Lord and Falklands veteran, said the Type 45 has an “amazing anti-air warfare capability.”

He also sent a warning to the Buenos Aires government. “Should there be any foolish nonsense from Argentina, Dauntless can sit just off the airfield and take down any aircraft coming in. It’s a game-changing capability.”

A Navy Spokesman said: “The Royal Navy has had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic for many years. The deployment of HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces another ship on patrol.”

Dauntless will replace the ageing Type 23 frigate Montrose.

Earlier this month the Navy sent Daring, the first Type 45, to the Arabian Gulf as tensions with Iran increase.

By Doug Giles

Obama, in his State of the Union address and during his initial five-state, multi-million dollar taxpayer funded re-election jaunt has stated repeatedly that his platform and policies are not about class warfare, which means, of course, that his ticket is all about class warfare—or “fairness,” as he likes to call it … or as the Scripture labels it, envy.

You don’t hear much about envy anymore, do you? We hear a lot about greed being bad, but in Obamaland envy is no longer a rank vice but a right and a virtue. However, historically speaking, envy has always been seen as a high-ranking sin. Envy, matter of fact, is second on the Seven Deadly Sins list as it lags behind pride a wee bit in being the nastiest and most common vice.

Ancient in its poison, envy forms a big chunk of the foul compost heap that stimulates the growth of human stupidity. Envy is an extremely toxic sin that doesn’t get the verbal hailstorm that other sins receive in our current entitlement culture with its totemic view of vice. Someone who has been saddled by the envy monkey will probably not make the evening news like a politician who has been caught in bed with a live man or a dead woman or who keeps his freezer stuffed with cash.

No, envy is not that sexy and doesn’t have the buzz that zings around a greedy Goldman Sachs exec. Because this sin doesn’t get MSNBC’s attention like the more juicy transgressions, we tend to see it as less naughty. But be not deceived, my brethren: This sin is disastrous once it sticks its talons into a person, party, religion, or nation.

Another distinguishing feature of the funk of envy is that it is no fun. All vices sport a momentary spice. All of them, that is, except for envy. Envy is the one sin the sinner will never like or admit. You’ll never see someone who is envious chilling out, laughing his butt off, or relaxing with his friends while this demon rules the roost. The more envy grows, the more it drives its impenitent coddler nuts.

So, what is envy? Well … let’s start with what it is not. It’s not admiring what someone else has and wanting some good stuff also. This desire will make you get off your butt in the morning and get busy. It is good to crave; a man’s appetite will make him work. Where envy differs from admiration/emulation is that envy is “sorrow at another’s good” (said Thomas Aquinas). Someone who is centered can watch another person, party, or nation prosper and not grow hateful because of it.

The whacked, petty, envious dolt, however, sees someone else excel and is slapped in the face with the reality that he just got dogged. So, instead of sucking it up and working harder and smarter, the unwise envious freak allows his pride to fuel his wounded little spirit. This sets the dejected perp down a path of disparagement of the prosperous that eventually morphs into the desire to destroy the person, party or nation that has just trumped this sad little person.

Os Guinness, best-selling author and renowned lecturer, states that the sin of envy has several common characteristics:

1. Envy is the vice of proximity. We are always prone to envy people close to us in temperament, gifts or position.

2. Envy is highly subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder. It is not the objective difference between people that feeds envy, but the subjective perception. As a Russian proverb says, “envy looks at a juniper bush and sees a pine forest.”

3. Envy doesn’t lessen with age. It gets worse as we run into more and more people of happiness and success, offering more fodder for envy.

4. Envy is often petty but always insatiable and all consuming. However small the occasion that gives rise to it, envy becomes central to the envier’s whole being. The envier “stews in his juice.” Envy begins with pride and then plunges the person into hatred.

5. Envy is always self-destructive. What the envier cannot enjoy, no one should enjoy, and thus the envier loses every enjoyment. The envier’s motto is “if not I, then no one.” As an eighth-century Jewish teacher put it, “the one who envies gains nothing for himself and deprives the one he envies of nothing. He only loses thereby.”

Y’know, there are many forces tearing at this land and many nations that would like to level our nation. That said, I believe this envious entitlement funk that’s speedily weaving its way into the fabric of our national life will destroy it faster than al-Qaeda could ever al-Hope to.