During a radio interview yesterday, one of the state’s most partisan Republican radio hosts essentially begged state Rep. Lori Saine (R-Firestone) to walk back her statement at the Capitol last week that blacks and whites were once lynched in “almost equal numbers.” But Saine didn’t take the hint.

First, KNUS 710-AM host, Dan Caplis, tried this:

CAPLIS: “…the Greeley Tribune version of the comments, as you know, is that you said essentially that black and whites had been lynched in nearly equal numbers during Reconstruction, and lynched for being Republican. Do you want to clarify those comments? What’s your view of all that now?

SAINE: And I clearly meant [during] Reconstruction. And Reconstruction is a period from 1865-1877, by the way. There is not a tremendous amount of data for a lot of those years, but the data that we do have….

Caplis tried again:

CAPLIS: “I think one of the concerns – and one thing you may want to qualify – is the reason why people were lynched – because my guess is, and this is not something I’ve researched – but intuitively I’d guess that an awful lot of the whites who were lynched were lynched for various alleged crimes such as stealing horses, bank robbery, etc., whereas blacks were just being lynched for the color of their skin. Am I right?”

SAINE: So, I have heard that argument before, but, if you look at the lynchings earlier in the 1800s versus the numbers coming right out of Reconstruction, it’s hard to say that all of a sudden they went from – you know, if you look at 1882 its 64 whites, 49 blacks….

Then Caplis said to Saine:

CAPLIS: “But we know – don’t we? – that blacks were being lynched based on the color of their skin. And whites weren’t being lynched based on the color of their skin, right?”

SAINE: So, the accounts that we have of history that people have written books about – I mean, there is a lot of sources on this. But there’s even an African American Congressman – his name is John Lloyd Lynch….

The Caplis finally said to Saine as an apparent last resort:

CAPLIS: “But some could easily view this as you attempting to equate the plight of whites with black when it came to lynching, or to somehow downplay the horror that was inflicted on blacks, to politicize it, to make it a Republican thing. So, can you see where people would see your comments that way?”

SAINE: Well, that certainly was not my intent. And the rest of my speech goes on to say that Americans of all faiths, creed, and race stood by Reverend King to march for civil rights. And they were beaten, they were tortured, they were killed….

The exchange is shockingly unusual, because it took place on a platform that’s usually friendly turf for Republicans like Saine, who are under fire in the rational media world, to walk back, criticize, slam, flip flip, whatever it takes to get back on message.

But in this case, Saine looked awful going into Caplis’ show–and she looked even worse when she departed. Read the entire exchange below.

State Rep. Lori Saine, Dan Caplis Show, January 22, 2019

CAPLIS:  I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with Representative Lori Saine. Welcome to 630 KHOW!

SAINE: Thank you so much for having me….

CAPLIS: I don’t know if you saw The Denver Post editorial today. My guess is somebody probably pointed it out to you. It was pretty vicious, aimed at you, over comments made on the floor of the legislature. And the Greeley Tribune version of the comments, as you know, is that you said essentially that black and whites had been lynched in nearly equal numbers during Reconstruction, and lynched for being Republican. Do you want to clarify those comments? What’s your view of all that now?

SAINE: And I clearly meant [during] Reconstruction. And Reconstruction is a period from 1865-1877, by the way. There is not a tremendous amount of data for a lot of those years, but the data that we do have – and I should have modified, or made a modifier to that speech I gave on the floor. But when you’re writing things on the fly –.

SAINE: Now, I knew – I’ve seen the numbers before. I should have said “during Reconstruction or the decade after.” And it turns out that, when you look at the data, and I’ve shared this data multiple times, because it’s out there – it’s public. It turns out that there were more whites than blacks lynched. The numbers: 525 for whites and 371 for blacks up until 1887. And so, you know, that’s a full decade after Reconstruction. Now, nobody is denying that more blacks than whites were lynched over the course of the next – you know – 80-some years. But that was the point I was trying to make: we’ve come a long way since then. We’ve come a long way since, you know, that form of torture and political punishment was used to try to silence, and try to undo all the benefits of Reconstruction.

CAPLIS: Right.

SAINE: And you know, going on to the present day, you know, Dr. King would not want us to go backwards. I mean, there has been so much accomplished, even since his time. And we’ve been moving forward together. And there are very few countries that enjoy the level of comfort that we have. You know, their middle class has less room – square footage – than we do, eats less red meat, doesn’t have all the conveniences that even the folks that are considered under the poverty level [here]. America is amazing! It’s amazing what it has brought innovation-wise. We’re one of the top countries in the world still. I think up to a fourth of the innovations come out of the United States. I mean, it’s amazing.

CAPLIS: Sure. And, Representative, I don’t think there’s any doubt, if people are being honest about it, that African Americans in this country are still tremendously disadvantaged in numbers far too great, particularly when it comes to equal opportunity in education. I think that can be traced, almost always, to policies of the Democrats, which have the effect of being blatantly racist. I’m not saying they’re intended that way. But, my goodness! – they have such an obvious racist effect, and disadvantaged African Americans in so many ways. But let me ask you this, if I may, because I do want to give you the chance to clarify on this statement about lynching, because obviously you know that when it comes to something like lynching, that was such as tool of ultimate terror and is most directly – as you know– associated with the subrogation of African Americans in this country, I think one of the concerns – and one thing you may want to qualify – is the reason why people were lynched – because my guess is, and this is not something I’ve researched – but intuitively I’d guess that an awful lot of the whites who were lynched were lynched for various alleged crimes such as stealing horses, bank robbery, etc., whereas blacks were just being lynched for the color of their skin. Am I right?

SAINE: So, I have heard that argument before, but, if you look at the lynchings earlier in the 1800s versus the numbers coming right out of Reconstruction, it’s hard to say that all of a sudden they went from – you know, if you look at 1882 its 64 whites, 49 blacks. But that number jumps up on whites in 1884 to 160. It’s hard to believe that that many people would say, “Gosh, I’m going to rob a bunch of banks today or do some horse trading.” And then the number spikes for blacks in 1892 and 1892 – a big spike! And, you know, there has got to be a reason for that other than that many more people were caught stealing horses.

CAPLIS: But we know – don’t we? – that blacks were being lynched based on the color of their skin. And whites weren’t being lynched based on the color of their skin, right?

SAINE: So, the accounts that we have of history that people have written books about – I mean, there is a lot of sources on this. But there’s even an African American Congressman – his name is John Lloyd Lynch. And he had mentioned specifically — this is somebody that served during that time – that blacks were hanged in greater numbers because of their opposition to the Democratic Party. So, it was probably easier to tell by the color of their skin. Then I’m sure there’s no doubt that they were also lynched because of hatred – somebody who looks different. There’s no doubt about it.

CAPLIS: Well, right. I don’t think that there’s any doubt that that was the central motivation for lynching blacks and then blaming it on whatever the killers and murderers chose to blame it on.

SAINE: Right. Exactly

CAPLIS: But one thing that you’ve been criticized for – and I want to give you the chance to say whether it’s accurate or not – is that you said that the reason for the lynchings was “being Republican,” quoting the Tribune story – the Greeley Tribune. “A Colorado Republican said white people and black people were lynched in nearly equal numbers for being Republican in the post-Reconstruction era.” Is that accurate – the Republican piece of that?

SAINE: So, the interesting part of this conversation is a lot of people emailed me and said no whites were ever lynched. That’s not true, for one thing. You can look at the numbers and see that it was [true]. So, that’s sort of an interesting conversation that people did not know about. But there’s plenty of accounts in history. There’s books [that have] been written from that era. There’s – it has been pointed out to me that even Ron Chernow who wrote the Hamilton book – which was very well-received, made into a play – he wrote another [book] about Grant. And he was talking about some of the violence against white Republicans, and specifically the carpet-baggers, those young people who came down from the North to not only look for jobs but they were also there to help black folks in the South. And white folks that helped black folks in the South– who were already there in the South– were called ‘scumbags’. So it’s — you know, there’s a lot of sources on this. I’m not saying that all of them were based on the fact that they were part of a political party. I never said that. I didn’t say all of them were. Does that satisfy your question?

CAPLIS: Yeah, well, — yeah. But I’m sure you can see why there was such a strong reaction to this, in that some might have viewed it as – and I assume you’ll tell us it was not your motive, and I would believe that. But, some could easily view this as you attempting to equate the plight of whites with black when it came to lynching, or to somehow downplay–

SAINE: No, not at all. Of course not.

CAPLIS: –the horror that was inflicted on blacks, to politicize it, to make it a Republican thing. So, can you see where people would see your comments that way?

SAINE: Well, that certainly was not my intent. And the rest of my speech goes on to say that Americans of all faiths, creed, and race stood by Reverend King to march for civil rights. And they were beaten, they were tortured, they were killed. And the point of the matter was that he stood for all Americans. He stood on the mountaintop for all Americans to have the same rights. And I believe that King was about unity. So that’s really where the flow of that speech was going. It was never meant to say – or to downplay or to take away from the horrors that happened in the Civil War and the Reconstruction era.

CAPLIS: Well, and to the point of context for this, I hope folks are aware that your comments – and the comments on lynching, personally, I wish had not been part of your overall comments – but your overall comments, in fairness, you were on the floor to honor Dr. King. And that is what the bulk of your comments did. And that was clearly the intent behind your appearance.

If you’re one of the three people who follow the Denver radio scene closely, you know that longtime KOA morning host Steffan Tubbs was fired last year, after his arrest on domestic-violence charges, which were later dismissed.

Now Tubbs is jumping over to conservative KNUS radio, joining a lineup of ultra-conservative local yappers. The local part I like; the monolithic conservatism is ugly and getting uglier in the age of Trump.

So I was glad to see that KNUS was adding Tubbs, who I thought was less of a predictable conservative than other KNUS hosts. Tubbs often asked decent questions of his guests on his KOA show, and I admired his book about an African-American serviceman.

But it looks like Tubbs is a moderate no longer, if he ever was one. Judging from a KNUS guest appearance Jan. 19, it looks like his departure from KOA has sent his right wing flapping.

“If you’re just tuning in, and you wonder who I am, I consider myself very, very middle-of-the-road. I consider myself to be a reformed Democrat. When I was younger, let the government help, and all this sort of thing.

“And as I’ve become more mature, and I hope a little fiscally more responsible, you know where I am voting now. And so, just to be clear, as my old friend at KOA Mike Rosen said, let me know where you stand before you sit, I think Hillary Clinton right now should be in jail, I voted for President Trump, I wish the President didn’t tweet as much, but I think we need more common sense.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Wishing Hillary were locked up. Voting for Trump. Moderate?

I tried repeatedly to reach Tubbs to discuss this, but alas he did not respond to me. In response to my first attempt to contact him last week, he asked for my email address. But radio silence ever since. Oh well.

“I’m not trying to big time, but I am a text away from Senator Cory Gardner,” said Tubbs on air, illustrating his conservative connections, while it’s “very, very tough” for him to reach U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), whom he did say was a “very decent man.”

Tubbs will be taking the KNUS slot currently occupied by social-conservative lawyer Dan Caplis, who announced Jan. 18, that he was going to take “a little sabbatical” from the regular radio show to spend more time with his family and write the definitive book on the “Colorado disaster” with marijuana. He said he plans to return to radio work after his daughter goes to college.

I’m hoping Tubbs won’t turn into another Caplis on the ideology scale. But it’s not looking good.

Listen to Staffan Tubbs say he’s a moderate despite voting for Trump and saying Clinton should be in jail.

I was really looking forward to U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner’s (R-CO) appearance yesterday on Colorado Public Radio, especially after reading the outpouring of questions submitted in response to CPR journalist Ryan Warner’s request for queries for Gardner on the tax bill.

Here are the 100-plus questions, from Warner’s Twitter feed. They give you hope for representative government in these dark times.

But alas, Gardner canceled, leading Warner to Tweet:

I’m grateful for all the questions you’ve shared for @SenCoryGardner. His office says they must reschedule. Stay tuned.

You have to take Gardner at his word that he had a real conflict, but it’s worth noting that our senator did not cancel his radio interview with arch conservative Jimmy Sengenberger, over at KDMT, this morning at around 7 a.m.

Sengenberger started off by confirming Gardner’s previously announced position against backing Alabama Republican Roy Moore, who faces accusations of child molestation. Sengenberger told Gardner he “appreciates” Gardner’s stance.

“Thank you. Thank you,” said Gardner.

Then the tax bill.

“Where do we go from here?” asked Sengenberger, pulling out his big guns.

“I was very excited about the passage of the tax relief bill. Every income bracket, every income level in America will see tax relief as a result of this bill legislation. It’s going to grow the economy, create a million jobs, and most importantly for the people of Colorado, this will lead to higher wage growth. We’ve seen for far too long, over the past decade, stagnant wages, people working harder than ever, and they are not bringing home more money. As a result of this legislation, businesses bringing investments back into the United States, more competitive around the globe, we’re going to see those dollars come back into the United States and it’s going to result in competition for workers. And as a result we’ll see wage growth. That’s a very powerful tool of economic growth and economic activity, and that’s what we’re going to see…This makes us competitive again.”

Help! Journalistic intervention needed. But alas, no Warner-type person exists in the KDMT studio.

Instead, we have Sengenberger. All he could come up with was a trickle of a question about whether the individual tax cuts would be made permanent.

No doubt they would at some point, said Gardner, and the interview continued with this:

Sengenberger: “How much of an impact do you think this could really have on wages and other forms of investments that businesses might want to make, Sen. Gardner, in their businesses?”

Gardner: “Well, I think significant. If you look at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, their estimates in Colorado for net increase in income for the average family is over $3,000…”

Sengenberger’s response: None. (Complete acceptance of trickle-down economics and of the Tax Foundation as nonpartisan, when it’s in fact right-leaning)

He moved on to praising Gardner for the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate.

“That one could affect a large swath of people, myself included,” Sengenberger told Gardner.

“This simply says to people, ‘You have a choice,” responded Gardner. “You can either buy insurance or not. It’s about freedom. It’s about opportunity….

“[This bill] doesn’t take anybody’s health care away. That’s simply a hysteria out there that is just not founded in reality.” [emphasis added]

Nothing from Sengenberger about the truly nonpartisan Congressional estimates that 13 million people will lose health insurance as a result of the repeal, and premiums will rise by 10 percent more than anticipated.

Instead, Sengenberger’s follow up question puts an exclamation point on why we can’t afford for journalism to die in America.

“How optimistic are you at being able to get this bill through Congress by the end of the year, if not by Christmas?” asked Sengenberger.

“You know, I’m very optimistic….” said Gardner.

Listen to Gardner’s interview on KDMT 1690-AM Dec. 6.

The last time U.S. Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) compared the Russia investigation with the conspiracy around Obama’s birth certificate, Buck left open the possibility that evidence of Trump colluding with Russia may still emerge.

Buck stated in May that he hoped Trump would be cleared, adding: “I also think that politically, people are going to be raising this issue just like people raised the birth certificate or other issues on President Obama that I didn’t think were credible but that some people did. And they kept gnawing at it.”

Buck’s comment led Colorado Politics’ Dan Njegomir to offer this interpretation:

Njegomir: What Buck also seemed to be saying is that the Russia allegations — whether they ultimately prove true, are somehow debunked or remain inconclusive — have assumed a life of their own. They have become a mantra of the left much as the former president’s country of origin assumed mythic proportion for the birthers on the right.

In his latest comment on the topic, on KVOR on Saturday, Buck completely dismissed the Russia investigation, making Njegomir’s charitable interpretation hard to defend.

Buck said the investigation has “no substance” and “diverts attention from the real issues that we need to address.”

Here you go:

HOST JEFF CRANK: Let me ask — on the Russia issue — you alluded to it. I’ve talked about it here. I think it is just the grand diversion of the left. And when I say the left, it’s the Democrats and it’s the media who doesn’t like Donald Trump. There’s not been a shred of evidence that there is collusion. But we’re talking about Russia constantly. Your thoughts on that?

U.S. REP. KEN BUCK: Well, I think that’s right. I was a prosecutor–as you know, Jeff – for 25 years. And I go to the town hall meetings and people keep on bringing up Russia. To me it is the equivalent of the far right conspiracy theory about Pres. Obama’s birth certificate. I think it has no substance. I think it diverts attention from the real issues that we need to address. And we are going to regret in 10-15 years — when we go off the fiscal cliff, when we can’t afford to do the things they we’re doing right now, when we can’t borrow money to keep our government going in this artificial way – we’re going to regret the fact that we didn’t spend time and focus as a country on the important issues and problems that we have.

Listen here:

“I’m sorry, but what a meterosexual. Have you ever heard a bigger meterosexual?” said Denver KNUS 710-AM’s Chuck Bonniwell, mocking Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, who was body slammed by Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-MT).

“In the real world of men, men, men,” Bonniwell continued, “you, know, it’s inappropriate. And you go, ‘You owe me an apology.’ And Gianforte did give him an apology the next day. And that would be the end of it.”

Bonniwell runs newspapers in the Glendale and Cherry Creek. So you’d have thought there might be a chance he’d actually take the side of journalism here.

“I got in lots of fights, as an adult,” said Bonniwell on air. “My reaction, if somebody shoved me, would be shove ‘em back. But I would never say, ‘You broke my glasses.’”

Bonniwell called Jacobs a “little jerk,” saying he got what he deserved.

How did we get here? Listening to the audio won’t help you understand.

The voice you hear in the audio below is Jimmy Lakey, morning host at Fox News Radio (KCOL 600-AM) in Ft. Collins, Colorado.

He offers an insulting take on Cinco de Mayo, calling it “Cinco de Drinko,” and mocking other aspects of Latino culture. He tones it down before his guest GOP gubernatorial candidate George Brauchler appears. Lakey is a former GOP congressional candidate.

Lakey once compared Michele Obama to Chewbacca, and howled with laughter when a caller compared her to the the main character in Planet of the Apes.

The morning after voter fraud charges were filed against KLZ 560-AM morning host Steve Curtis, there he was, on the air, interviewing William Gheen, who’s on a “mission” against illegal immigration.

But things changed during the day, as you know if you were one of the lucky people listening to KLZ’s afternoon show, where Dan Meurer announced the resignation of the former GOP state chair:

Dan Meurer: All over the news is our morning show host Steve Curtis. So Steve has been brought up on charges, as we all know. And Steve resigned this morning. And basically that’s all we are going to say about it. It’s all we really know. And as a friend of Steve’s I wish him the best of luck. Prayers are with him. And there we go.

In an email today, Don Crawford of KLZ’s owner, the Crawford Broadcasting Company, confirmed Curtis’ resignation.

It appears that Curtis resigned on his own volition, because Crawford Broadcasting was prepared to keep him on the air until he was found guilty, according to Fox 31 Denver:

Curtis’ bosses at Crawford Broadcasting in Dallas said Curtis is innocent until proven guilty and it has no intention of taking disciplinary action unless and until he’s convicted.

Crawford Broadcasting clearly should have suspended Curtis, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings, because the serious nature of the allegations stripped him of his credibility.

Strangely enough, a couple years ago, Crawford Broadcasting quickly suspended interviews with Tom Tancredo, after the former Congressman teamed up with Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman to try to oust GOP state chair Steve House. The temporary Tancredo-interview-ban led to the resignation of Randy Corporan, who hosted KLZ’s morning show prior to Curtis’ tenure there.

Crawford’s innocent-until-proven-guilty approach to Curtis was not used by Clear Channel, the owner of Denver’s KHOW 630-AM, when it immediately suspended host Peter Boyles after he reportedly grabbed the lanier of producer Greg Hollenbeck during a violent exchange. Boyles was immediately suspended and later fired.

Listen to KLZ’s announcement of the resignation of Steve Curtis:

This post was updated with the email from Crawford.

In a ironic twist, a billboard promoting atheism has prompted a Colorado Springs radio host to attack the religion of Islam.

Demonstrating the same brazen bigotry of KNUS host Peter Boyles, not to mention Trump, KVOR 760-AM host Richard Randall said Thursday that if athiests have a “problem with religion,” they should after Islam.

Without acknowledging how un-Christian he was sounding, Randall said he’d respect atheists a “whole heck of a lot more” if they put up a billboard saying, “skip Ramadan this time of year,” and telling Muslims “they should abandon their religion.”

Christians, he said, are “a great bunch of people to pick on. Why? Because they are Christians.”

“Why would our religion [Christianity] irritate somebody?” asked Randall on air, suggesting that the atheists should have spotlighted Islam instead of a Christian holiday. “We’re not the religion throwing people off of buildings if they are gay. We’re not beheading people.”

“If they have a problem with religion, why don’t they start there [with Islam]?” Randall asked, failing to note any distinction between Islamic militants and the religion of Islam.

A caller said atheists spotlight Christmas because they aren’t “familiar with the Muslim religion [sic]”

The billboard, sponsored by the American Atheists and located along I25 in CO Springs, reads, “Atheist Christmas, The More the Merrier.” It also features a series of texts, made to appear like they were sent by teenagers, stating:

“U going to church this Xmas?”

“LoL. No way. I don’t believe that stuff anymore.”

“What’ll your parents say??”

“They’ll get over it. :-P”

A caller suggested the billboard, which is protected by free speech, should be removed by the government because it’s distracting drivers. It’s a safety issue, she said.

The bigotry of talk radio hosts would be bad enough if we didn’t have a bigot president-elect who’s proposed creating a Muslim registry. But since we do, we need to be ready to respond if Randall, Boyles, Trump, or anyone else in these hateful times goes after our Muslim neighbors.

In case we need to respond, ProgressNow Colorado has set up a “rapid response” network so we can help if needed. Sign up here.

Why did State Sen. Laura Woods (R-Arvada) share a recent Facebook post asking, “Remember when Americans could say ‘Merry Christmas’ without getting viciously attacked?”

What reality is she in? The conservative-media-bubble reality, of course. Talk radio, Facebook, etc.

If you listen to KNUS 710-AM or follow Woods on Facebook then, yes, you might actually think meanie libtards are out their waiting to viciously attack you if you drop the Merry-Christmas bomb. It’s a manufactured reality.

It’s sad that Woods, who lost her seat in last month’s election, apparently believes it. And I’d like the opportunity to discuss her Facebook like, first revealed by Charles Buchanan on the Colorado Times Recorder, but she doesn’t return my calls.

Woods might say that disputes about the phrase “Merry Christmas” occur in the real world, outside of talk radio. And they do, especially about its use in public places. And they can be a bit vicious, no question, at times. But this is rare.

It’s conservatives, firing up the air in their bubble, who perpetuate the myth of viciousness, as Woods did this week on her Facebook feed.

Bigotry toward Muslims is part of the hot air on some Colorado talk-radio shows, so much so that you get inured to it and kind of accept it.

But now that Trump is about to be president, the air seems a lot hotter, and it’s impossible to ignore right-wing bigotry as fringe craziness.

How can you not worry about the safety of Muslims in our community when you listen to, for example, KNUS radio’s Peter Boyles, who’s a notorious birther and bigot?

At this moment, with Trump on the White House doorstep, can we/ should we/ pretend not to hear Boyles’ hatred? And what to do about it?

In an on-air discussion yesterday morning with a fellow bigot named Tim Furnish, Boyles denounced Islam and said Muslims are incapable of respecting the U.S. Consitution and the fundamental values of the United States, due to their religious beliefs, essentially saying there is no place for Muslims in our country.

FURNISH: There’s a real incompatibility between Islam and Western-style government democracy. There just is.

BOYLES: It doesn’t work! They don’t work!

FURNISH: They don’t work together. This incompatibility is not extremist. It is intrinsic to Islam.

BOYLES: Agreed.

FURNISH: … Islam has never come to terms with, as they say, modernity. Islam has never come to terms with the idea of a secular state that has not imposed a religion –even the majority religion–on people. Because at the heart of Islam–going back to Mohammed himself, the Quran, the Hadith, so-called sayings of Mohammed, and 1400 years of Islamic practice– is that where there is a majority of Muslims, Islamic Law must be instituted. And where there is a minority of Muslims, they should fight – at first, maybe peacefully and then later through jihad – for the imposition of Islamic Law. This tension will not go away.

BOYLES: Yeah, it’s, “First – first—“.

FURNISH: And you cannot make Western democracy work with Islamic ideals. They are incompatible.

BOYLES: “First we crawl, then we walk, then we run.”

FURNISH: Right.

BOYLES: That’s why — I mean, it’s happening before your very eyes. Hillary Clinton got all twisted up about all of the stuff, and went after Trump. Trump is telling the truth.

If you’re saying Islam “doesn’t work” with “Western-style government democracy,” and you’re agreeing that even a minority of Muslims in a country will eventually wage jihad, then you’re basically saying Muslims have no place in the United States. Worse, you are saying all Muslims are a constant threat. How else to interpret this?

Elsewhere in this interview, Boyles said Muslims aren’t the ones who are the victims of a McCarthy-like attack. It’s Peter Boyles who’s actually under attack, according to Boyles!

“Progressives,” Boyles said on air, “They hunt for victims.”

In this case, in Boyles view, progressives are hunting for people who promote “Islamophobia,” decried by Boyles as a “created term” designed by progressives to stifle criticism of Muslims.

“This is a new McCarthy-ism,” Boyles said.

But today’s attacks on Muslim haters are worse than what happened in the McCarthy era, Boyles went on to say, because the press is on the side of the Muslims, instead of supporting people like Boyles—whereas before Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly were there to “stand up to the McCarthyists,” said Boyles.

“We don’t have Big Journalism standing up as Edward R Murrow did, as Fred Friendly did,” said Boyles, who was once a respected, even beloved, media figure in Denver, if you can believe it. “We have a bunch of fill-in-the-blanks who are just desperate to lay down in front of this train. And you know what? As they say, they will come for you. They may eat you last, but they will still eat you.”

Boyles is mad at journalists for defending the basic civil rights of Muslims and exposing bigots like him.

Again, Boyles’ ugliness would be bad enough if our country didn’t have a Muslim-hating bigot as president-elect. But since we do, we have to fight back now or at least be ready to help our Muslim neighbors if people like Boyles begin organizing attacks against them—with or without the backing of Trump and our own government. We’ve reached that point.

ProgressNow Colorado has set up a “rapid response” network to, among other things, mobilize people in support of Muslims and others if Boyles, Trump, or anyone goes after them. We have to be ready. Sign up here.

LISTEN TO BOYLES’ NOV. 29 INTERVIEW FURNISH BELOW.