This is a GREAT video on America's obsession with and its double standard on race.
The full 1-hour presentation can be found in its entirty here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1084394769627714346#
Saturday, October 10, 2009
A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE - Excerpt 2
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Left’s Inherent Anti-Semitism...
It’s important that ALL Americans come to realize why the Left has always and continues to revile the Jews, ardent Christians and the Judeo-Christian tradition itself. It’s the Judeo-Christian tradition's Biblical principles that motivated America’s Founders to establish a system based on INDIVIDUALISM, private property rights and limited governance. Those principles are completely antithetical to the Left’s Marxist agenda, which is primarily why the far-Left is rabidly anti-Christian AND virulently anti-Semitic.
Every black American should also read Professor Walter E. Williams article on Marx’s rabid racial bigotry; http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724 to get a better understanding of what the Left thinks of blacks as well.
Some recent remarks by David Romero-Ellner of Honduras, make the Left’s deep and abiding anti-Semitism, and by extension, it’s anti-Christian hate, as Christianity sprang from the Judaic tradition, all too clear.
Every black American should also read Professor Walter E. Williams article on Marx’s rabid racial bigotry; http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724 to get a better understanding of what the Left thinks of blacks as well.
Some recent remarks by David Romero-Ellner of Honduras, make the Left’s deep and abiding anti-Semitism, and by extension, it’s anti-Christian hate, as Christianity sprang from the Judaic tradition, all too clear.
“Sometimes I ask myself if Hitler wasn’t right to finish with that race, through the famous holocaust, because if there are people who are harmful to this country, they are the Jews, the Isaelites.” (David Romero Ellner, Executive Director of Radio Globo, Honduras Sept 25, 2009)
Those were the words of one of Honduras' leading Zelaya supporters, who began his political career as a radical activist and one of the founders of the far-Left People’s Revolutionary Union.
.
He’s also a convicted incest-pedophile, who did some jail time for sexually molesting his own daughter - a penchant, for whatever reasons, not at all atypical of the Leftist persona. Ever notice how the far-Left loves defending pedophiles, from the ongoing reflexive media defense of pedophile director, Roman Polansky to the ACLU’s recent defense of NAMBLA over that groups disseminating information on how to abduct and rape children? It is a veritable obsession on the Left.
Moreover, Mr. Romero Ellner’s comments merely followed up Manuel Zelaya’s own charge that he was being “subjected to high-frequency radiation” from outside the Brazilian Embassy where he was staying, and blaming “Israeli mercenaries” for his travails.
Worse still, for America’s Zelaya supporters, is the facts laid out by New York District Attorney General, Robert Morgenthau, who recently spoke at the Brookings Institute acknowledging that, “Iran and Venezuela are beyond the courtship phase. We know they are creating a cozy financial, political and military partnership and that BOTH countries have strong ties to Hezzbolah and Hamas.”
It’s extremely vital that all Christians come to understand why the Left reviles the Jews? It’s the same reason why Hitler, Stalin and ALL leading Leftists to this day despise the Jews?
It’s because the Jews, more than any other group, represent the commercial and merchant class...from their ranks have sprung many of the most ardent Capitalists. The Jews are, as more than one Leftist has lamented, “incorrigibly Capitalistic.” That’s the reason Hitler hated them and it’s the same reason ALL Leftists hate the Jews. Ironically enough, it can be said without any exaggeration that “the Left is incorrigibly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and pro-pedophile.”
.
SEE Mary Anastasia O'Grady's excellent article in today's (10-6-09) Wall Street Journal; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574451341698592458.html
Monday, October 5, 2009
A Basic Economics Lesson...
Too many liberals today mistake liberalism for anti-capitalism and with the plethora of misguided, Left-wing goofballs from Michael Moore to Keith Olbermann to Janeane Garafolo, who can really blame them?
Recently I saw this pablum from a liberal poster, "...many of those in the US today who call themselves conservative aren't really conservative at all. They're reactionaries !!! They want to undue all of the social and economic progress the US has made in recent years and create a form of capitalism which denies help to those in need, and think that this will increase general prosperity.” (“superhorn” – a generic liberal)
<Recently I saw this pablum from a liberal poster, "...many of those in the US today who call themselves conservative aren't really conservative at all. They're reactionaries !!! They want to undue all of the social and economic progress the US has made in recent years and create a form of capitalism which denies help to those in need, and think that this will increase general prosperity.” (“superhorn” – a generic liberal)
<
Actually it was liberal social and primarily economic policies (called Keynesianism) that imploded the economy during Jimmy Carter's star-crossed Presidency, the real “worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression,” with STAGFLATION (double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates), along with a record high Prime Lending rate (22%) and a record high Misery Index (23) to boot! In fact, President James Carter presided over four years of double digit Misery Indexes AND an average annual Misery Index of 16.2 - a post-WW II record!
ALL of the economic progress in the U.S. since the Keynesian implosion presided over by Carter was brought about through the Supply Side (market-oriented) policies brought about during the Reagan administration, lapsed shortly during Bush Sr.'s years (Bush Sr. was a Nixonian Keynesian and was only the 2nd post WW II U.S. President to preside over a full term of double digit Misery Indexes) then resurged again during the Gingrich years.
IF there were only some way to argue that the economy is NOT the "expanding and contracting pie" that Supply Siders claim it is and that it really IS a "fixed pie," ONLY THEN could we argue in favor of some degree of redistribution and more "economic equality," because if there were only a fixed amount of wealth one Donald Trump would consign 1,000 other people to poverty.
Of course we DON'T have a fixed economic pie, we DO HAVE a very fluid one. Donald Trump's and Mike Bloomberg's BILLIONS don't deny others access to wealth, nor consign so many others to LESS, in FACT they create many more opportunities for other well educated, technologically savvy people to take advantage of.
WHY are liberals so economically ignorant?
We have a host of systemic problems in this country, most of them cultural that are working themselves out economically. One of those problems is so many people lauding words like “equality” and “democracy” without ANY understanding of what those words mean.
America was founded on LIBERTARIAN principles by men who saw “freedom” as strictly defined as “INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY,” which is complete SELF-ownership with the full burden of personal responsibility that comes with it. They saw “freedom” primarily as “freedom from government restriction or intrusion,” which is why they devoted the first ten amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) to shackling the government by LIMITING its actions.
ALL of America’s Founders not only opposed but reviled anything like a pure democracy, where the “will of the majority ruled.” Ben Franklin famously said, “Democracy is like four wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.”
As a result the Founders built in all sorts of mechanisms to thwart democracy at every turn, including a Legislature comprised of a Senate with 2 Senators from every state, so that small states would have the ability to thwart the excesses of larger, more populous states by amending and negating many of their Bills in the Senate, and like the election of Senators conducted by the Legislatures of the individual states and the Electoral College, which was designed to blunt the electing powers of the larger, more populous states.
Why did they do all this? For one thing, they all saw the excesses of democracy in the annals of Roman history and for another, they all recognized that as hard-working, successful, land-owners they were, in fact a minority in need of protection from the majority or “the rabble” as some called the people. Moreover, ONLY about 14% of Americans supported the American Revolution, mostly the merchant and investor class, which were comprised almost entirely of “landed gentry,” the common folks didn’t really want a fight with “mighty Britain,” or “Mother England,” but that 14% minority prevailed, because they were better organized, more dedicated in their purpose and more disciplined to achieve their objectives.
All of America’s Founders rightly feared the excesses of government and the dreaded “tyranny of the majority.”
The word “equality” was NOT anywhere extolled by America’s Founders. They all knew that “Free men are NEVER equal, because individuals are not equal in their abilities or temperaments, but slaves are always equal in their misery.” The oft used phrase “equality before the law” was no endorsement of ANY kind of “equality of men” other than that they should all be equally accountable...and equally SELF-owning.
Those principles are what America’s cherished freedoms and prosperity are due to.
America’s market-based economy is why our GDP is more than twice the combined GDPs of the 2nd and 3rd most productive nation’s GDPs and it’s why the more market-oriented we’ve been (like during the near two decade long Supply Period from 1981 to 2002) the more prosperous we’ve been.
That’s born out in the fact that the Keynesian period that stretched from 1964 to 1981 marked a terrible downward spiral economically for America and why the Gingrich years, when a Conservative Congress actually forced federal budget CUTS on a reluctant Executive Branch, not only delivered the LOWEST Misery Indexes in over 40 years (1998’s Misery Index was an incredible 6.1, it’s currently 10.6 and was as high as 23 during Carter’s tenure), but was what delivered the SURPLUSES present at the end of the Clinton tenure. It’s ironic that a President who fought so hard against those Federal Budget CUTS, benefitted so greatly from the surpluses those cuts created.
N.B. for those who still don’t seem to understand the difference between the DEFICIT and the National Debt; a “Budget SURPLUS” (like we had in 1998, 1999 and 2000, means that we merely took in more money than we spent, it sadly WASN’T used to pay down any of the ponderous U.S. National Debt. The National Debt at the end of the Clinton administration was a huge $5.3 TRILLION! As an analogy, the Deficit is what local weather (expenditures vs. revenues for each year) is to climate as our National Debt (the ever-mounting DEBT we add to with each year’s succeeding DEFICITS). Like weather and climate, they are related, but far from the SAME thing.
G W Bush, who was as Keynesian as his father, DID initially cut taxes and tax revenues skyrocketed and halved the DEFICIT in three years, despite a tremendously expensive two-front war AND more social spending (even adjusted for inflation) than even LBJ delivered, but his spending DID deliver deficits every year and he ended his tenure having upped the National Debt to a staggering $9.8 TRILLION! Still, as many note, about $3.4 TRILLION of that $4.5 TRILLION addition came over the last two years, when G W Bush was cooperating with the Pelosi-Reid Congress.
When the political tides turn, we are going to NEED someone like a Gingrich who’ll come in and undo most of the last decade (yes, including much of the Bush debacle – the prescription drug boondoggle, the NCLB spending, etc.)
That’s why an expanded public option is NOT all that bad a prospect to me.
The primary problems with America’s healthcare delivery are (1) the FAILING existing PUBLIC OPTION and (2) the exploding cost of giving away too much advanced care. An expanded public option would (1) insure everyone with basic, minimal care, while allowing those who can and want to avoid the coming rationing and restrictions to buy private sector supplemental health insurance, (2) take a ponderous weight from the back of U.S. industry and make them even more competitive in today’s global market, while making the U.S. workforce even more productive and appealing to foreign employers, and perhaps most importantly, (3) allow for COST REDUCTIONS by RATIONING and RESTRICTING ALL of the public options. It can be argued that Medicare, which we all pay into, should be LESS rationed and restricted than Medicaid and the new expanded public option for all and that can be argued down the road, on its own merits.
In my view, that kind of “targeted rationing” would be very good for U.S. business and would make President Obama good to his word, when he recently said, “...it saying that no one else is going to carry your burdens for you any more.”
We have a host of systemic problems in this country, most of them cultural that are working themselves out economically. One of those problems is so many people lauding words like “equality” and “democracy” without ANY understanding of what those words mean.
America was founded on LIBERTARIAN principles by men who saw “freedom” as strictly defined as “INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY,” which is complete SELF-ownership with the full burden of personal responsibility that comes with it. They saw “freedom” primarily as “freedom from government restriction or intrusion,” which is why they devoted the first ten amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) to shackling the government by LIMITING its actions.
ALL of America’s Founders not only opposed but reviled anything like a pure democracy, where the “will of the majority ruled.” Ben Franklin famously said, “Democracy is like four wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.”
As a result the Founders built in all sorts of mechanisms to thwart democracy at every turn, including a Legislature comprised of a Senate with 2 Senators from every state, so that small states would have the ability to thwart the excesses of larger, more populous states by amending and negating many of their Bills in the Senate, and like the election of Senators conducted by the Legislatures of the individual states and the Electoral College, which was designed to blunt the electing powers of the larger, more populous states.
Why did they do all this? For one thing, they all saw the excesses of democracy in the annals of Roman history and for another, they all recognized that as hard-working, successful, land-owners they were, in fact a minority in need of protection from the majority or “the rabble” as some called the people. Moreover, ONLY about 14% of Americans supported the American Revolution, mostly the merchant and investor class, which were comprised almost entirely of “landed gentry,” the common folks didn’t really want a fight with “mighty Britain,” or “Mother England,” but that 14% minority prevailed, because they were better organized, more dedicated in their purpose and more disciplined to achieve their objectives.
All of America’s Founders rightly feared the excesses of government and the dreaded “tyranny of the majority.”
The word “equality” was NOT anywhere extolled by America’s Founders. They all knew that “Free men are NEVER equal, because individuals are not equal in their abilities or temperaments, but slaves are always equal in their misery.” The oft used phrase “equality before the law” was no endorsement of ANY kind of “equality of men” other than that they should all be equally accountable...and equally SELF-owning.
Those principles are what America’s cherished freedoms and prosperity are due to.
America’s market-based economy is why our GDP is more than twice the combined GDPs of the 2nd and 3rd most productive nation’s GDPs and it’s why the more market-oriented we’ve been (like during the near two decade long Supply Period from 1981 to 2002) the more prosperous we’ve been.
That’s born out in the fact that the Keynesian period that stretched from 1964 to 1981 marked a terrible downward spiral economically for America and why the Gingrich years, when a Conservative Congress actually forced federal budget CUTS on a reluctant Executive Branch, not only delivered the LOWEST Misery Indexes in over 40 years (1998’s Misery Index was an incredible 6.1, it’s currently 10.6 and was as high as 23 during Carter’s tenure), but was what delivered the SURPLUSES present at the end of the Clinton tenure. It’s ironic that a President who fought so hard against those Federal Budget CUTS, benefitted so greatly from the surpluses those cuts created.
N.B. for those who still don’t seem to understand the difference between the DEFICIT and the National Debt; a “Budget SURPLUS” (like we had in 1998, 1999 and 2000, means that we merely took in more money than we spent, it sadly WASN’T used to pay down any of the ponderous U.S. National Debt. The National Debt at the end of the Clinton administration was a huge $5.3 TRILLION! As an analogy, the Deficit is what local weather (expenditures vs. revenues for each year) is to climate as our National Debt (the ever-mounting DEBT we add to with each year’s succeeding DEFICITS). Like weather and climate, they are related, but far from the SAME thing.
G W Bush, who was as Keynesian as his father, DID initially cut taxes and tax revenues skyrocketed and halved the DEFICIT in three years, despite a tremendously expensive two-front war AND more social spending (even adjusted for inflation) than even LBJ delivered, but his spending DID deliver deficits every year and he ended his tenure having upped the National Debt to a staggering $9.8 TRILLION! Still, as many note, about $3.4 TRILLION of that $4.5 TRILLION addition came over the last two years, when G W Bush was cooperating with the Pelosi-Reid Congress.
When the political tides turn, we are going to NEED someone like a Gingrich who’ll come in and undo most of the last decade (yes, including much of the Bush debacle – the prescription drug boondoggle, the NCLB spending, etc.)
That’s why an expanded public option is NOT all that bad a prospect to me.
The primary problems with America’s healthcare delivery are (1) the FAILING existing PUBLIC OPTION and (2) the exploding cost of giving away too much advanced care. An expanded public option would (1) insure everyone with basic, minimal care, while allowing those who can and want to avoid the coming rationing and restrictions to buy private sector supplemental health insurance, (2) take a ponderous weight from the back of U.S. industry and make them even more competitive in today’s global market, while making the U.S. workforce even more productive and appealing to foreign employers, and perhaps most importantly, (3) allow for COST REDUCTIONS by RATIONING and RESTRICTING ALL of the public options. It can be argued that Medicare, which we all pay into, should be LESS rationed and restricted than Medicaid and the new expanded public option for all and that can be argued down the road, on its own merits.
In my view, that kind of “targeted rationing” would be very good for U.S. business and would make President Obama good to his word, when he recently said, “...it saying that no one else is going to carry your burdens for you any more.”
Rationing and restricting an expanded public option would target the least productive among us, which would be a rare program in America, one that would benefit the most productive immeasurably. In fact, it would be one of the more Supply Side programs we could enact, ultimately making individuals MORE responsible for their own health coverage via a strictly rationed expanded public option and much NEEDED supplemental insurance for any who want to avoid that rationing.
H/T to Hassan at Digital Publius (http://web.me.com/toddgroup/digital_publius/Blog/Blog.html) for inspiring this discussion.
Two (UN)Shocking Developments...
In the first, the much ballyhooed and expected repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy has apparently been shelved, at least for now, by the Obama administration, with Whitehouse spokesman James Jones saying, President Obama “has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time...”
Just this past Sunday his National Security Advisor has added, President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military.
As a candidate, Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their sexuality.
Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.
The second UNSHOCKING development is the admission that “Closing Gitmo is proving harder than expected.”
Just this past week, Whitehouse spokesman James Jones said that meeting President Obama’s deadline to close the facility by Jan. 22 is proving harder than officials first thought.
Senior administration officials have told The Associated Press that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other tough questions mean the president’s promised January deadline may slip.
Hmmm...not much “change” from the Bush policies on the War on Terror...and THANK God for that.
Just this past Sunday his National Security Advisor has added, President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military.
As a candidate, Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their sexuality.
Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.
The second UNSHOCKING development is the admission that “Closing Gitmo is proving harder than expected.”
Just this past week, Whitehouse spokesman James Jones said that meeting President Obama’s deadline to close the facility by Jan. 22 is proving harder than officials first thought.
Senior administration officials have told The Associated Press that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other tough questions mean the president’s promised January deadline may slip.
Hmmm...not much “change” from the Bush policies on the War on Terror...and THANK God for that.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Why the Left Defends Pedophiles...
With the arrest of Hollywood pederast Roman Polanski, defending pedophilia is back en vogue.
Whoopi Goldberg, usually somewhat more sensible on most matters, said, “..It wasn’t really rape, rape...”
Actually it was indeed “RAPE, RAPE” and even worse, it was pedophilia.
Whoopi Goldberg, usually somewhat more sensible on most matters, said, “..It wasn’t really rape, rape...”
Actually it was indeed “RAPE, RAPE” and even worse, it was pedophilia.
.
The victim cried “No,” and that's AFTER the predator had plied her with drugs and alcohol...and oh yeah, SHE WAS JUST THIRTEEN YEARS OLD! Roman Polanski was 43 y/o at the time. He SHOULD be serving a life sentence.
Statutory rape only applies to consensual sex between an adult (over 18 y/o) and an “under-aged partner” (14 y/o up to 18 y/o)...UNDER 14 years of age it’s pedophilia, as the victims in such cases are rightly considered CHILDREN.
But this is nothing new, back when this case occurred, over three decades ago, movie mogul Jack Warner reportedly said, “This was an accident that could’ve happened to anyone.” Enough said about that...the statement clearly speaks for itself.
And Polanski isn’t the only pederast the Left has embraced and even lionized the likes of Woody Allen and Michael Jackson, even though the latter always seemed guilty of the less abominable offense of “inappropriate dealings with juveniles.”
For a long time now the ACLU has defended pedophiles and pederast organizations.
Back in 2004 Deroy Murdock rote, “...the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.
“The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.
“Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.
“So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?
“Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.”
“Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.”
“As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."
“However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."
“NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."
“Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."
"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."
"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."
“The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.
“Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.
“The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.
“Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers.
“The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.
“This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.
“Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.
“San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.
“The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.”
Statutory rape only applies to consensual sex between an adult (over 18 y/o) and an “under-aged partner” (14 y/o up to 18 y/o)...UNDER 14 years of age it’s pedophilia, as the victims in such cases are rightly considered CHILDREN.
But this is nothing new, back when this case occurred, over three decades ago, movie mogul Jack Warner reportedly said, “This was an accident that could’ve happened to anyone.” Enough said about that...the statement clearly speaks for itself.
And Polanski isn’t the only pederast the Left has embraced and even lionized the likes of Woody Allen and Michael Jackson, even though the latter always seemed guilty of the less abominable offense of “inappropriate dealings with juveniles.”
For a long time now the ACLU has defended pedophiles and pederast organizations.
Back in 2004 Deroy Murdock rote, “...the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.
“The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.
“Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.
“So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?
“Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.”
“Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.”
“As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."
“However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."
“NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."
“Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."
"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."
"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."
“The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.
“Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.
“The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.
“Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers.
“The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.
“This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.
“Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.
“San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.
“The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.”
All the Polanski case shows is just how complicit Hollywood has been with the far-Left’s pro-pederast agenda.
.
But WHY?
.
Why does the Left defend and protect pedophiles and bristle at things like online pedophile stings and laws that target pedophiles?Perhaps because there have always been a far greater number of pedophiles in government than in the general public.
Last April, the Democrats sure were very touchy on the subject!
“If we're going to discard the crucial concept of equality before the law for the sake of "hate crimes" legislation, why not punish hate crimes against our troops?” repeated an outraged Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) to her questioner, her answer was that comparing abused military personnel to "real victims" like blacks and homosexuals is "belittling to those who actually need these special protections, the real victims in our society.”
Democrats claimed that their Bill did not and would not defend pedophiles under its “sexual orientation” clause, but when Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King offered an amendment that would have barred pedophiles from receiving special protection under the hate crimes bill. The amendment was defeated along a Party-line vote 13-10. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin [D-WI] called the amendment was "unnecessary and inflammatory."
In the wake of that controversy, Media Matters went into overdrive to provide its typical slimey cover for its Leftist overlords. “Discussing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which defines as a federal crime certain acts of violence or attempted violence "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person," Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Bill Hemmer, and The Fox Nation, have all recently advanced the false claim that House Democrats voted to "protect" or "defend" pedophiles by voting against an amendment to the bill by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) stating that "the term 'sexual orientation' shall not include pedophilia."* In fact, as Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) noted during an April 23 House Judiciary Committee hearing, the term "sexual orientation" is already defined by federal statute as applying only to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality," thereby excluding pedophiles, who engage in nonconsensual sexual relationships with children. (THAT'S clearly UNTRUE! As Rep Tammy Baldwin has acknowledged that "sexual orientation is NOT defined in the Bill," which opens the door to pedophile protections) In providing her reasons for opposing King's amendment, Baldwin said that it "is unnecessary and, I would add, inflammatory in terms of insinuations."
See that?
While acknowledging that the Democrats (EVERY Democrat) voted against Rep. King’s common sense amendment, that would merely make sure that at no time could this Bill be used to protect pedophiles in any case, they blatantly LIED in claiming that Fox News mis-represented that position.
They DID NOT.
.
Rep. Steven King’s amendment would’ve merely made sure this Bill could never be construed to protect pedophiles and EVERY Democrat on that Committee chose to vote AGAINST that!
According to Rep. King, "This panel - this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill - either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation."
Openly lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) responded to King by noting that gender identity is defined in the bill as "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics," but acknowledged that sexual orientation is not defined in the legislation.
The primary reason that so many Leftists in government defend pedophilia, other than self-protection, is that at heart, they abhor America's traditional morality, standards and mores and are actively seeking to eradicate those as part of their pathway to their brave new world.
According to Rep. King, "This panel - this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill - either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation."
Openly lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) responded to King by noting that gender identity is defined in the bill as "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics," but acknowledged that sexual orientation is not defined in the legislation.
The primary reason that so many Leftists in government defend pedophilia, other than self-protection, is that at heart, they abhor America's traditional morality, standards and mores and are actively seeking to eradicate those as part of their pathway to their brave new world.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Media Landscape May be About to Change...
Could things look any better for Conservatives?
OK, they sure could. With the Pelosi-Reid Congress still screwing up the economy (they were responsible for adding almost $3.4 TRILLION of the $4.5 TRILLION the Bush administration piled onto the National Debt), ACORN and its founders Dale and Wade Rathke remain unindicted, BUT, on the bright side, more citizens are engaged and opposing big government liberalism than at any time since the early 1980s, the "public option" is off the table in the healthcare overhaul and the liberal media is suffering greatly.
As the New York Times continues to drown in red ink, as the Wall Street Journal rakes in the cash, MSNBC ranks dead last among all cable news outlets with less than a THIRD of Fox News' viewership, just as NBC ranks third among the old news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC).
Late this week came word that GE is considering unloading NBC to Comcast Cable for a reported $35 Billion.
Will Comcast turn around NBC’s far-left attitude?
While there’s no proof that would happen, but IF Comcast wanted to make NBC competitive and profitable, it would certainly make a lot more sense for them to cater to the prevailing tastes rather than to continue trying to force-feed the Olbermann-Mathews-Maddow bile down an unwilling public’s throats.
OK, they sure could. With the Pelosi-Reid Congress still screwing up the economy (they were responsible for adding almost $3.4 TRILLION of the $4.5 TRILLION the Bush administration piled onto the National Debt), ACORN and its founders Dale and Wade Rathke remain unindicted, BUT, on the bright side, more citizens are engaged and opposing big government liberalism than at any time since the early 1980s, the "public option" is off the table in the healthcare overhaul and the liberal media is suffering greatly.
As the New York Times continues to drown in red ink, as the Wall Street Journal rakes in the cash, MSNBC ranks dead last among all cable news outlets with less than a THIRD of Fox News' viewership, just as NBC ranks third among the old news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC).
Late this week came word that GE is considering unloading NBC to Comcast Cable for a reported $35 Billion.
Will Comcast turn around NBC’s far-left attitude?
While there’s no proof that would happen, but IF Comcast wanted to make NBC competitive and profitable, it would certainly make a lot more sense for them to cater to the prevailing tastes rather than to continue trying to force-feed the Olbermann-Mathews-Maddow bile down an unwilling public’s throats.
A Tale of Two Incidents...
Earlier this summer, when a neighbor called Cambridge, Massachusetts police as Harvard Professor Henry Gates and a driver were seen forcing their way into the back door of Gates’ home, a veritable international incident mushroomed after an indignant Professor Gates refused to show ID to the arriving police and harangued them to the point where he wound up being arrested on a “disorderly conduct” charge.
President Obama initially mis-spoke and called the police actions “stupid,” resulting in a “race summit” involving himself, VP Biden, Professor Gates and Officer Crowley, the Cambridge Police Sgt. Who arrested the Professor.
This past week a Chicago honors student, named Derrion Albert was viciously beaten to death by gang members in broad daylight outside his Chicago school. While some news outlets have speculated that Derrion Albert’s murder may have doomed Chicago’s chances of landing the 2016 Olympics, a nifty way of misdirecting the onus from President Obama’s latest international failure, there hasn’t been anything close to the kind of attention, let alone a “White House Summit” to address the ongoing scourge of urban violent crime.
In Derrion Albert’s case, he appears to be a kid doing all the right things – an excellent student, who was assaulted and killed after trying to break up a fight. In Professor Gates’ case, we saw an indignant race hustler create a faux “racial profiling” incident - a neighbor called the cops, after witnessing what appeared to be a break-in and cops merely sought to confirm that the homeowner and not an intruder was the person in that home at the time they arrived. The police in that case, “profiled” no one.
And yet, the current White House saw the incident where an indignant Harvard Professor harangued and maligned police officers sent to protect HIS home, as a major cause, while it ignores the plight of Derrion Albert, a very REAL victim of what police departments across the country combat daily – widespread urban violence.
Makes you wonder just where the priorities of America’s far-Left are?
President Obama initially mis-spoke and called the police actions “stupid,” resulting in a “race summit” involving himself, VP Biden, Professor Gates and Officer Crowley, the Cambridge Police Sgt. Who arrested the Professor.
This past week a Chicago honors student, named Derrion Albert was viciously beaten to death by gang members in broad daylight outside his Chicago school. While some news outlets have speculated that Derrion Albert’s murder may have doomed Chicago’s chances of landing the 2016 Olympics, a nifty way of misdirecting the onus from President Obama’s latest international failure, there hasn’t been anything close to the kind of attention, let alone a “White House Summit” to address the ongoing scourge of urban violent crime.
In Derrion Albert’s case, he appears to be a kid doing all the right things – an excellent student, who was assaulted and killed after trying to break up a fight. In Professor Gates’ case, we saw an indignant race hustler create a faux “racial profiling” incident - a neighbor called the cops, after witnessing what appeared to be a break-in and cops merely sought to confirm that the homeowner and not an intruder was the person in that home at the time they arrived. The police in that case, “profiled” no one.
And yet, the current White House saw the incident where an indignant Harvard Professor harangued and maligned police officers sent to protect HIS home, as a major cause, while it ignores the plight of Derrion Albert, a very REAL victim of what police departments across the country combat daily – widespread urban violence.
Makes you wonder just where the priorities of America’s far-Left are?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
