Category Archives: LGBT Bullshit
Morales’ hoax is a blip in the larger pattern of faked hate crimes. Bigotry is the witch hunt of the modern Salem and progressive witch hunters are just as careless about facts and evidence. Now as then, the goal is to stamp out an attitude and a cultural threat, rather than to enforce the law, and that leads inevitably to the entire tawdry parade of hysterical denunciations and moral panic.
But what is behind this need to manufacture intolerance?
The left built up its replacement for class warfare around identity politics. Though we take most of these identities, including the racial trinity and homosexuality, for granted, they are really modern artificial constructs that define how people should define themselves, rather than accepting them as they are.
Strangely enough, racial and sexual identities were more nuanced centuries ago than they are today where the “one drop rule” now goes completely unchallenged in matters of race and equally so in matters of sexual orientation. Anyone who can be claimed on any grounds by the victim group, must be identified with them or face accusations of false consciousness.
We are less willing to contemplate biracial and bisexual today than we were a century ago. Instead leftist collectivism demands that everyone be either one thing or another. Everyone is divided into categories of victim and oppressor. Just as no one can be both on both sides of the class struggle; so too the left rejects the idea of being on both sides of the victim line in race or sexual orientation.
On Seinfeld, Jerry’s dentist joined Judaism for the jokes. Leftists are joining native tribes for the victimhood. Meanwhile they’re defining those identities solely in terms of victimhood.
The absurdity of people lining up to be victims has led to the proliferation of fake Indians, like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill in the United States, and white aborigines in Australia. The fake indigenous tribal has little in the way of a genetic or cultural connection to any native people; but chooses to trade in his or her white identity, at least temporarily, to enhance their leftist politics.
They are engaging in a fraud much bigger than a forged receipt; but they are doing it for the same reasons.
An identity defined in terms of victimhood needs fresh injections of oppression to sustain its existence. Those African-Americans who define “blackness” not in terms of positive values but in terms of negative values, need white racism, the real thing or the fake one, to remind them of who they are. And the same holds true for other oppressed minorities who define themselves not by their culture or values; but by their resentments.
Intolerance has become identity. If you define your minority identity on the left’s terms, then if you aren’t being oppressed, you aren’t real. And if you constantly read accounts about other black people or other gay people being discriminated against and those experiences don’t match yours; you begin to wonder if something isn’t wrong with you. If maybe you aren’t an authentic member of the group.
There are two ways out of this intellectual trap; either recognizing that an identity need not be based on a sense of persecution or becoming “creative” about finding new forms of persecution.
It’s easy to mock Dayna Morales for forging a receipt snub. If only she had learned about critical race theory, she would have been able to denounce the family in question for their privilege. Instead of faking a receipt, she would have been able to express her internal need for persecution in the political language of the left.
Dayna only forged a single receipt. Obama spent five years in the White House forging phony racism accusations to protect him on every issue from the economy to ObamaCare.
The left’s need for victimization means that increasing levels of tolerance actually lead to escalating confrontations with these manufacturers of intolerance. The assertion that all white people are innately racist because of their privilege is one such response to increasing tolerance. By claiming that whiteness itself is racist, the left gets back to political identity, rather than actual discrimination, as the source of conflict and redefines even the most tolerant university multicultural spaces as racist.
The manufacturers of intolerance, whether they’re tenured academics like Ward Churchill, professional politicians like Barack Obama or angry waitresses like Dayna Morales, respond to tolerance with provocations. Their goal is to elicit evidence of intolerance to sustain their political identity. The more tolerance they encounter, the more they escalate their provocations.
Their goal is not a tolerant society. It’s not a multiracial society or a post-racial society. It is a society perpetually at war over identity politics. That conflict is what gives them power.
Tolerance provokes them by challenging their identity as members in good standing of the officially oppressed. Being accepted insults the entire basis of their identity. Schizophrenics experience the discontinuity between the real world and the distorted world in their heads as threatening. Likewise the left, which insists on racism, reacts with paranoia to any talk that the country has become more tolerant. Their political schizophrenia is unable to accept America as it is. Instead they are bent on seeing the bigoted country that they experience inside their own heads.
Paranoid schizophrenics manufacture things to be paranoid about. Identity politics manufactures its own illusory bigotries. The schizophrenic Two Americas of liberals are really the America that exists and the hateful cartoon of it that they draw in their own heads, depict in movies, scrawl into articles and broadcast on television.
Liberals claim to want a better America, but they reject it at every turn. Their cynicism even poisons what should have been their triumphs.
Obama’s victory was an opportunity for healing and unity. Even many Republicans cheered his inauguration, but liberals rejected the gift that Americans were giving and instead doubled down. Racism became their response to everything. Now every week brings another editorial accusing skeptics of government health care of being the new Confederacy. The New York Times even ran an op-ed describing a new Mason-Dixon line composed of states that rejected Medicaid expansion.
As disappointing at this behavior was to many, it was an inevitable as that forged receipt. The left derives its purpose from defending the oppressed and doling out social justice. If racism were gone, it would have to find a new reason to justify its existence. It had to go through that once when class warfare imploded under the pressure of American prosperity. It isn’t about to go searching for a substitute for the racial tensions it manufactures.
The dominant political identity groups have responded to growing tolerance in the United States by defining intolerance down or provoking intolerant responses through aggressive publicity stunts. If the stunts don’t bring out disgust and anger that they can work with, then they will simply invent intolerance wholesale by claiming that bigotry isn’t an act or a word, but an innate attitude that lurks buried deep within the majority group. And that the only healing can come when the majority rejects its own identity and joins a minority group.
Beyond the community organizers, the academics and the political hacks who feed off that hatred are the millions of Americans who have not only unknowingly swallowed their dogma, but who have built entire identities around that sense of insecurity and oppression. These people are driven to organically manufacture intolerance because it defines who they are.
The left has dumped millions of Americans into this shadowy world where they have no positive reason for existing, only a negative one of defying some phantom establishment of patriarchy and some nebulous idea of white privilege.
Wearing chips on their shoulders they seek to provoke the confrontations that give them meaning and when their anger is met with tolerance, they manufacture intolerance with forged receipts, with accusations of white privilege, with fake hate crimes and phony accusations of racism.
It’s a short distance from Dayna Morales forging a receipt to get some money and attention to Barack Obama faking accusations of racism to win a political fight and score another term.
Societal norms are determined by the culture at large, not by a pointy-headed, ideologically driven ruling class. Yet sometimes the ruling class demonstrates an alarming ability to stampede the masses in any direction it chooses, like drovers directing a herd toward a stockyard. For example, in 1974, the American Psychological Association, yielding to pressure from militant homosexuals, stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder. A generation later, Christian businesses are forced to close their doors for refusing to participate in blasphemous homosexual parodies of weddings. Now on to the next “civil rights” frontier:
In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.
Nothing wrong with thinking about it; just don’t actually do it.
Again we see that moonbattery is imposed by increments. Otherwise the frog would jump out of the pot.
DSM VI will likely drop any reference to the subject. By DSM VII or VIII, we will see a listing for pedophobia, the shameful condition suffered by neurotically narrow-minded people who are judgmental about pedophilia.
APA’s decision has given rise to numerous pedophilia-advocacy groups, the chief of them being B4U-ACT, a non-profit grassroots organization based in Maryland. Created in 2003 primarily as a means for “minor-attracted persons” to be open about their sexual preferences in a supportive atmosphere, B4U-ACT is now widening the scope of their organization.
According to spokesperson and registered sex offender Paul Christiano, the pedophilia-advocacy group is “working towards de-stigmatizing the mental health community.” Christiano explained that negative societal attitudes towards minor-attracted persons “trickle down to policy-making and the mental health community.”
Having been down this road before, we know where the reengineered societal attitudes will take us. You can easily lose your job for failing to revere homosexuality, a practice regarded with near universal revulsion within living memory. The same will soon be true of pedophilia. Our government has already issued a pedophile stamp, so baby-rapers don’t have long to wait for their place on a pedestal.
On a tip from St. Gilbert.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
When decent people gag on learning that the US Post Office is issuing a Harvey Milk stamp, it is not just that Milk’s sole notable accomplishment was to be acknowledged as a pervert. He was a particularly disgusting type of pervert than any healthy society would strive to eradicate rather than deify. Matt Barber has enraged liberals by drawing attention to Milk’s “deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys”:
Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.
And a “progressive” martyr was born.
Like many in the sacred (to moonbats) gay caste, Milk was drawn to the young — the illegally young:
One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.
Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.
Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
McKinley later committed suicide.
Milk didn’t have much use for what he called the “heterosexual model” of sexual relationships. He preferred multiple partners. This is how AIDS spreads so quickly. McKinley was hardly his only prey.
Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.
According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.
Too bad the authorities dropped the ball on this, no doubt for political reasons. If Milk had been thrown in prison where he belonged, California might have been spared the ignominy of an actual state holiday called Harvey Milk Day, and the nation as a whole might never have to behold Harvey Milk postage stamps.
You can tell a lot about people by the people they admire. Sometimes you can tell even more by the people they demand that others admire. Evidence that normalization of pedophilia will be the next great civil rights crusade continues to accrue.
On tips from R F, Python, and Scott Drummond.
This may be the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life.
On Friday I mistakenly urged people to buy Barilla products, after owner Guido Barilla appeared to stand up for decency by refusing to comply with militant deviants who demand that commercials push their propaganda by featuring depraved homosexual “families.” But now it appears that the Gay Mafia has made him an offer he could not refuse. These 43 seconds of horror emblemize the sinking of a civilization into the sewer:
The “evolution of the family” means good-bye to that corny old paradigm of mother, father, and the children they produce. Now it means pairs (and eventually larger groups) of sodomites acquiring other people’s children so as to raise them in their corrupt, unholy, and exceedingly unhealthy lifestyle — and often so as to exploit them as sex slaves (e.g., see here, here, andhere).
No doubt the family will continue to evolve until children are created from clones. At that point our grotesquely depraved ruling class will be able to do away with traditional families altogether.
What do these freaks do to people like Barilla to make them grovel in such abject terror?
Needless to say, the buycott is now a boycott. Get ready to field astonished questions from your kids regarding why the “families” slurping spaghetti in the TV commercials have two daddies and no mommies.
On tips from Jim72, Matt L, Spicy Meatball, and DJ.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/?p=37274
The sexual molestation that inevitably results (see here, here, and here) is hardly the only reason that the liberal push for more homosexual adoption is morally abhorrent. How can it be called decent to put children into situations like this?
The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl … defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
[Adoptive guardians] Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide.
Whereas if they are freakified through grotesque medical practices best left on the Island of Doctor Moreau, they live happily ever after. Just ask Nancy Verhelst. No wait, you can’t; she had herself put out of her misery like deformed dog.
Thomas’s transition into a make-pretend girl began at age eight. His guardians are inflicting hormone suppressants to prevent him from developing a male voice, broad shoulders, and facial hair. If this doesn’t qualify as child abuse, the statutes need to be rewritten.
Whatever the motivations involved in this particular situation, given the pathological fear and hatred of males that often characterize women who base their identities on being lesbians, situations like this are an inevitable consequence of homosexual adoption and the bizarre moonbat notion that a person’s sex can be altered. The progressive ruling class is dragging the rest of society down a path that cannot lead to anything healthy.
On tips from Dan Feely and Josh F.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Poisoning the culture isn’t enough. They are also going after the blood supply:
The U.S. gay-rights movement has achieved many victories in recent years – on marriage, military service and other fronts. Yet one vestige of an earlier, more wary era remains firmly in place: the 30-year-old nationwide ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men.
This is for the obviously excellent reason that homosexuals spread HIV through their tainted blood. Their unnatural proclivities also make them much more likely to carry hepatitis B among other ghastly diseases.
According to the FDA, men who have had sex with other men represent about 2 percent of the U.S. population, yet accounted for at least 61 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2010.
Dating from the first years of the AIDS epidemic, the ban is a source of frustration to many gay activists…
As always, they have support from the moonbat establishment.
In June, the American Medical Association voted to oppose the policy. AMA board member William Kobler called it “discriminatory and not based on sound science.” Last month, more than 80 members of Congress wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services, criticizing the lifetime ban as an outdated measure that perpetuates inaccurate stereotypes about gay men.
In this context, “inaccurate” means “highly accurate, but politically incorrect to acknowledge.” Incidentally, the AMA also helped ram through ObamaCare over doctors’ objections. The AARP represents not old people but the leftward edge of the liberal establishment; the AMA is its equivalent for doctors.
Other moonbats have joined in:
On some college campuses, students have urged boycotts of blood drives until the ban is repealed. Over the summer, activists organized a “National Gay Blood Drive” – asking gay men to visit blood centers, take tests to show their blood was safe, and then try to donate in defiance of the ban.
Jason Cianciotto of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis barks that the ban “perpetuates the stigma that gay and bisexual men are dangerous to public health.” It is inconceivable that anyone who is “engaged in AIDS prevention and care” could fail to understand that they very obviously ARE dangerous to public health. But normalizing perversion takes priority over health.
Do we have a shortage of blood? We do not:
Susan Stramer, executive scientific officer with the American Red Cross, agrees that the magnitude of the blood supply isn’t a decisive factor in the debate.
“We have a surplus of blood,” she said. “The question is about what’s equitable.”
To judge by the horrifying willingness of liberals to subject children to homosexual adoption (with easily predictable consequences; see here, here, and here), there will be no moral qualms among the P.C. intelligentsia regarding the innocent life lost if the blood supply becomes infected.
On a tip from Rotohammer.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
San Antonio Passes Ordinance Banning Anyone Who Opposes Homosexuality From Running For Office, Receiving A City Contract…
Diversity apparently trumps religious beliefs.
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — San Antonio’s leaders on Thursday approved anti-bias protections for gay and transgender residents, over the disapproval of top Texas Republicans and religious conservatives who packed a City Council hearing and occasionally shamed supporters for comparing the issue to the civil rights movement.
The 8-3 City Council vote in favor of the ordinance was a victory for gay rights advocates and for Democratic Mayor Julian Castro, a top surrogate of President Barack Obama. Castro has called the ordinance overdue in the nation’s seventh-largest city, where there is a stronger current of traditionalism and conservatism than other major Texas cities that already have similar gay rights protections.
Supporters in red shirts and opponents in blue sat on opposite sides of the ornate council chamber Thursday. Church leaders vowed petitions to recall council members, and the shouts of protesters outside City Hall often carried through the stone walls of the century-old building.
More on the ordinance from an earlier post via OneNewsNow:
The San Antonio City Council is doing some housecleaning to combine all of its anti-discrimination rules and ordinances into one. The consolidated ordinance states a desire to adopt a “comprehensive and expanded non-discrimination policy with revisions to outdated terminology.”
According to Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, the city leaders want to add two categories to the policy: sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” he tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”
Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.
“They said they’ve never seen this kind of language in any other ordinance in any other city that they’ve dealt with,” the pastor shares. “It is unprecedentedly wrong – and of course the citizens of San Antonio must stop it.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The purpose here is less to come to their defense and more to thumb his nose at Putin. How far our relationship with Russia has fallen. Yes, the “reset” was a reset to complete animosity, and Russia not the only country with whom Obama has harmed relationships.
In a display of utter political incoherence, President Obama plans to meet with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates in Russia while visiting the Kremlin, even as he attempts to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin for support on an international military action against Syria. Russian opposition to American intervention in Syria has been a major factor in Obama’s decision to seek approval from Congress for military action in Syria. On Saturday, Obama blasted the UN Security Council, a veiled reference to Russia, by calling it “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold [Syrian President Bashar] Assad accountable.”
While in Moscow, Obama plans to meet with human rights activists Lev Ponomarev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, legal aid non-governmental-organization director Pavel Chikov, and Coming Out.
Russia and the United States have been at odds over myriad issues over the past few months, including Russia’s grant of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden, Russia’s law against “gay propaganda,” and Russia’s Middle Eastern policy in support of Iran and Syria.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
At times it seems that America has lost its mind, or at least that the concept of “rights” as our Founders understood and defined them is slipping away. RS McCain reports that the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that everyone in New Mexico must do anything that Gay couples looking to get married say because human rights you Homphobe!
Gosh, it seems like just a few years ago that allegedly serious people were warning about how the “christofascist godbags” of the Religious Right were an existential threat to freedom in America, and if you disagreed with these allegedly serious people, you were just a hateful bigot.
Now? Well, you’re still a hateful bigot, but freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to lose”:
New Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that people must set aside their religion in order to avoid creating the slightest inconvenience for gay people. . . .
No, by all means, let’s use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people’s lives instead of just telling the gay couple to “Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.”
Just how they reached such a fundamentally flawed decision is frankly, inexplicable. Can the government now FORCE a business to provides goods or services against their will? Apparently the Leftists on that court think so. It is the price of citizenship apparently!
On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that religious wedding photographers could be forced to photograph same-sex weddings. “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court ruled unanimously.
The court said that Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, had discriminated against gay customers for not photographing their weddings, even though she had said she would be happy to take their pictures in different contexts. The court also refused any differentiation whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual conduct under the law, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico. Justice Edward Chavez wrote, “The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.” In other words, orientation and conduct are so intertwined that to discriminate against activity would be to discriminate against the person — an odd line of logic, given that it would then follow that discriminating against religious activity would constitute discrimination on the basis of religion, making the court’s logic self-defeating.
Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”
Talk about making it up as you go along! And note the word “tolerance”. How odd that the Gay couples must have, as in must have or else, “tolerance” but what of the “tolerance” for the wedding photographer? I guess some tolerance is more equal than others? Since when the Leftist definition of tolerance become part of our Constitution? I suppose, as McCain puts it, our moral superiors are to decide our every action now
Do you see what this is really about? If not, let me tell you that this is really about, “We, who are Your Moral Superiors, have authority to dictate your behavior, your words and, indeed, your thoughts.”
The language of “rights” is not about freedom, but rather power.
As I have said before, Gay marriage is a legitimate issue to debate, and, I think for states to decide. But the Gay activists and other Leftists will not let that happen. They are using this issue, as they have used many others, not to liberate, or to achieve equality of opportunity, but to create their version of what America ought to be. And understand me when I tell you that in their version of America, there will be no rights, only Leftist Totalitarianism! the Left’s thirst for power, TOTAL power, can never be slaked.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/page/3/
If militant perverts can’t subject children to a blasphemous and illegal parody of a wedding, then no one can have a wedding. That’s the rule at Cedar Point:
An amusement park in Ohio is canceling a wedding contest after a gay couple organized a protest against the promotion because it excluded same-sex couples.
Cedar Point amusement park initially limited the contest to male and female couples because it said state law doesn’t allow gay couples to legally marry in Ohio. A spokesman says the park decided to cancel the event once it started to take on political undertones, reported the Sandusky Register.
It took on “political overtones” when homosexual militants set up their menacing caterwauling.
Congrats, Pink Nazis. Now that the straights have had their marriage fun ruined, you can head on back to the bathhouse to plan the next attack.
Cedar Point was attempting to avoid conflict by canceling the event, but this won’t work unless we are willing to cancel everything. The LGBT “community” will always find another excuse to start a conflict. Bullies are never satisfied so long as no one stands up to them. Also, moonbattery is a totalitarian ideology. There is no corner of existence where they will just leave us alone. Everyone must bend to their will; everything must be defiled.
On a tip from Steve T.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
KATHLEEN KANE, thePennsylvania Attorney General, was in the news last week for declaring that she would not defend the 1996 state marriage law that bans same-sex unions. Kane made her announcement at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a sort of theme park for equality that is the ideal setting for prominent Democrats to accuse the nation of bigotry. Kane said she would not defend the 1996 state law in court because it was “wholly unconstitutional,” never mind that violating her oath and usurping the powers of the legislature are unconstitutional. Judging from her reported statement, Kane is not a brilliant orator. She said: (Continued)
From The Thinking Housewife: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/
Posted on | July 10, 2013
At Memeorandum, I saw this headline:
Perhaps you thought the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill was the craziest thing the Senate could ever do, but obviously you were wrong.
What this legislation would do is to make it a federal crime to discriminate in the workplace against the “transgendered.” And you may think to yourself, “Well, discrimination is bad and I’m not prejudiced or homophobic or anything” and shrug it off. So what?
If you are indifferent to ENDA in this manner, then quite clearly (a) you don’t know how “discrimination” law actually works in the modern workplace, and (b) you lack sufficient imagination to contemplate the potential consequences. Suppose you’re Sam, the loading dock foreman at a large hardware store — Home Depot, let’s say — and you’ve got a crew of four guys whose job is to unload the trucks as they arrive each day. Driving forklifts, hauling pallets of merchandise off trucks and moving them around the store so the items can be put on the shelves. One morning you arrive for work and here comes your crew man Joe, wearing a dress, wig and makeup.
“Morning, Sam.” “Joe? What the –” “I’m not Joe anymore. Call me Delores.” “What the hell are you talking about Joe?” “Sam, I’m Delores now. If you call me ‘Joe’ one more time, I’m afraid I’ll have to report you to Human Resources.” “Human resources? But . . . I don’t understand.” “It’s simple, Sam: For years, I’ve lived with this secret — a woman, trapped in a man’s body — but I’m not hiding it any more.” “But Joe . . .” “Delores.” “OK, whatever — Delores. But this is just crazy. I’ve known you since high school. We played baseball and went fishing together. And what about your wife and kids?” “They’re entirely supportive. As a matter of fact, we got the idea this weekend, watching the news together.” “Watching the news?” “Yeah, there was a gay guy who sued his company under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. His boss got fired and he got a $250,000 settlement. Civil rights and stuff.” “So you’re wearing a dress now?” “Yeah, you like it?” “Hell no. I mean, you’re six-foot-three and 270 pounds. Your legs aren’t even shaven. You look ridiculous.” “Ridiculous, huh? How long have I been working here, Sam?” “Three, four years.” “And when was the last time I got a raise?” “Well, your last evaluation — I dunno. What? October, I think. It was 75 cents more an hour, right?” “Sixty-five cents, Sam. Sixty-five f–king cents.” “OK. right — now I remember. What’s your point?” “My point is, I’m tired of being victimized by your transphobia.” “Trans-what? Have you gone nuts, Joe?” “F–k you, Sam. I know my rights. I’m going to Human Resources. This kind of discrimination has got to stop!” “But Joe . . .” “It’s Delores! Hater!”
As far-fetched as that scenario may seem, no one in 1965 ever imagined that claims of “discrimination” and “sexual harassment” — and the fear of such claims — would result in the situation now so widespread, where lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are a sort of constant threat of blackmail, where disgruntled employees make complaints knowing full well that companies are reluctant to go to court to defend against such claims. Instead, nine times out of 10, the complaining employee is given what’s informally called “go away money,” a settlement usually equivalent to a year’s salary, just so the company can rid itself of the legal nuisance.
Oh, and guess what happens to your insurance premiums when “non-discrimination” means that you must hire transsexuals and cover the cost of their surgery and other treatments?
People who shrug their shoulders about ENDA and other such nonsense, or who hesitate to denounce it because they don’t want to seem prejudiced, have no idea how all this talk about “fairness” and equality” actually operates, once it becomes law and people start getting sued or fired over flimsy claims of “discrimination.”
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Until 1973, homosexuality was acknowledged in the now politicized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a disease. Succumbing to it leads to a series of other serious disorders, many of them lethal, including depression, substance abuse, suicide, AIDS, hepatitis, and anal cancer. In a sane country, the job of doctors is to fight disease. In a country dominated by moonbats, their job is to spread it:
In its first sexual-orientation policy update in nearly a decade, the nation’s largest pediatricians group said its members should do more to fight “heterosexism” and “homophobia,” as well as step up their care of teens with same-sex attractions.
“Sexual-minority youth should not be considered abnormal,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said in its new materials on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youths, released Monday.
The guidelines offer advice for how to promote sexual deviancy to children:
Doctors can signal their openness to LGBTQ youths by putting out brochures with pictures of “both same- and opposite-gender couples” or posting a “rainbow” decal on an office door or bulletin board.
So much for “First, do no harm.”
On a tip from Bob Roberts.
Sexual perversion is now officially normal, just as 2 + 2 = 5 and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. If you disagree, modern educators will correct your view:
Students in a general psychology class at Columbia State Community College [in Clifton, Tennessee] were directed by their professor to wear “Rainbow Coalition” ribbons for an entire day and express their support for the homosexual community, said Travis Barham, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom.
According to Barham, Dr. Linda Brunton “essentially turned her General Psychology class into a semester-long clinic on the demands of the homosexual movement.”
Alliance Defending Freedom said the professor told students to write a paper about how they were allegedly “discriminated against” because of their support for homosexual conduct.
Several students objected to the assignment because their religious convictions prohibit them from supporting conduct their faith [as well as common sense] teaches them is immoral and unnatural.
Barham said the professor made it clear they had to follow the rules of the assignment to receive credit and allegedly told the students their own beliefs and viewpoints were irrelevant – even when they wrote their papers.
No arguments against homosexual conduct were permitted.
“When students objected to how she was pushing her personal views on the class, she explained that it is her job ‘to educate the ignorant and uneducated elements of society,’ that oppose this movement’s demands and to correct their ‘hateful and close-minded’ views” Barham said.
Don’t be too hard on Professor Brunton. Inside the liberal bubble, even the most unnatural and unhealthy forms of sexual perversion not only are considered normal but are dutifully revered. She is doing her students a service by preparing them to enter the ruling class.
On a tip from Clingtomyguns.
This is What God Thinks of a “Gay” Nation:
Romans 1:21-27 New Living Translation
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
Romans 1:28 KJV
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
And finally Paul says this in Romans 1:32:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Obama Tells LGBT Crowd He Sees A Tidal Wave Of Gayness Sweeping The Nation, “From Minnesota To Maryland, From The U.S. Senate To The NBA”…
All aboard the rainbow express, next stop, fabulous!
Via The Hill:
President Obama told attendees at a LGBT Pride Month celebration that the U.S. needs to get marriage equality “done now,” but that he believed the nation had reached a “turning point” on gay rights.
“We’re not going to have to wait that long,” Obama said. “From Minnesota to Maryland, from the U.S. Senate to the NBA, it’s clear we’ve reached a turning point.”
The president said that progress could be traced “from the courage of those who stood up.”
“Eventually america gets it right. that doesn’t mean we can be patient,” Obama said. “We know from our own history that change happens because we push it to.”
The president ticked off a number of accomplishments benefiting the gay community during his first term, including ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and expanding protections for HIV-positive individuals under his signature health care plan. He also urged the Senate to pass bipartisan legislation restricting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The amount of pandering to such a minuscule fraction of the population (1-2%) is mind boggling.
NEW YORK (MYFOXNY) – The union that represents NFL players has launched a line of LGBT pride shirts.
The NFL Players Association announced the launch on Wednesday in conjunction with LGBT Pride Month, which is June.
One Team Pride shirts feature the name and jersey number of an NFL player, including: Brendon Ayanbadejo, Connor Barwin, Domonique Foxworth, Scott Fujita, Steve Gleason, Chris Gocong, Chris Kluwe, Donté Stallworth, Terrell Suggs and Eric Winston.
The organization says the goal is to raise awareness around important issues of respect and acceptance.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
In a country where freedom and decency prevail, if homosexuals want special cakes to celebrate their blasphemous parodies of marriages, they would not be in a position to demand the cakes be baked by Christians who are morally obliged not to comply. However, homosexual bullies Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig have enlisted the ACLU to force baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado to betray his religious faith in obeisance to their perverted lifestyle.
Mullins, 28, and Craig, 33, filed the discrimination complaint against Phillips after visiting his business in suburban Denver last summer. After a few minutes looking at pictures of different cakes, the couple said Phillips told them he wouldn’t make one for them when he found out it was to celebrate their wedding in Colorado after they got married in Massachusetts. Phillips has said making a wedding cake for gay couples would violate his Christian religious beliefs, according to the complaint.
Needless to say there are any number of bakeries in greater Denver that would bake their cake without objection. This isn’t about cake, but about crushing resistance to a depraved agenda.
Despite the state’s leftward shift and the unending barrage of media propaganda intended to convince the herd of the preposterous precept that sexual perversion is now “normal,” the people of Colorado are not on board with this.
In 2006, voters banned gay marriage. More notably, in 1992, voters approved a ban on municipal antidiscrimination laws to protect [i.e., grant privileged status to] gays, leading some [i.e., liberal ideologues] to brand Colorado a “hate state.”
Here’s what is at stake:
If Phillips loses the case and refuses to comply with the order, he would face fines of $500 per case and up to a year in jail, his attorney said.
“It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that’s an intolerable choice,” [his attorney Nicolle] Martin said.
No legitimate government would impose such a choice. But our government has degenerated into a tool for imposing a malignant ideology, so Phillips’s chances don’t look good.
For all the sanctimonious rhetoric about “tolerance,” none is shown toward those unwilling to sacrifice morality to political correctness. This case perfectly illustrates the coercive corruption at the core of the liberal agenda. It is not just wrong, but evil.
On tips from Wiggins, Muddypaw, and Freddy Kaludis.
Posted on | June 3, 2013
You know how the “Free Kate” crowd say they have no agenda beyond “fairness” and “equality”? There is reason to doubt:
It’s difficult to describe my reaction to Kristin Ireland’s tearful “Lifetime movie” sympathy for Paige in Pennsylvania, jailed for being an 18-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old girl.
According to Ireland, this is a story about “railroading and “discrimination,” as if 18-year-old guys in Pennsylvania were routinely banging 14-year-olds without any fear of prosecution.
I think not, ma’am.
And I think Kristin Ireland wouldn’t be boo-hooing if this was a teenage boy doing time for statutory rape. No, her sympathy is reserved entirely for her fellow lesbians, and so therefore either:
- We must create a special Gay Jailbait Loophole to prevent the prosecution of “consensual” gay sex with 14-year-olds; or
- We must effectively end all prosecution for such crimes, hetero or homo, because equal application of the law would occasionally result in some 18-year-old lesbians going to jail for dating ninth-graders, and this would make Kristin Ireland cry.
Do these people ever think in terms of contingencies or unintended consequences? Can they not remove themselves from the emotional zone where tearful mothers bemoan the fate of their criminal children?
“Sure, Johnny stole that car, but lots of teenagers steal cars and get away with it. Why did they send my poor Johnny to jail?”
Nobody’s making a Lifetime movie about that, are they? No, and if Johnny the Teenage Hoodlum gets caught banging a 14-year-old, Kristin Ireland doesn’t give a damn about that, either.
It’s all about the Sacred Sapphic Sisterhood with her, and so the parents of Paige’s sexual conquest who objected to their daughter’s initiation into that sorority at age 14 are just hateful bigots.
Ditto for any parent who might object to their 14-year-old son playing naked leapfrog with 18-year-old guys, and we don’t know if Kristin Ireland if willing to extend the acceptable range beyond this specific 18/14 spread, or whether she’d grant enough leeway for a 19-year-old to take your 13-year-old to the Seventh-Grade Dance (and then go parking at Lover’s Lane afterwards, of course).
Exactly where Kristin Ireland would draw the line is hard to determine, but we can only hope it’s somewhere short of the point at which a perp tearfully tells us, “But she willingly got in the van — she said she wanted to help me find my puppy — it was consensual!”
A Lifetime movie, indeed.
UPDATE: If it’s OK for lesbians to have sex with 14-year-olds, certainly there’s no reason 16-year-olds should be off-limits, right?
On March 21, Garcia picked up the girl, and went to Starbucks for coffee. It was at the coffee shop that the teacher told the teen about her romantic dream involving the student. A week later, Garcia texted the girl to inform her she had just broken up with her boyfriend, and the pair expressed personal feelings for each other. The teen told Garcia she needed to see her, and the teacher picked her up in a rental car to drive the girl back to her apartment, “where they kissed passionately for the rest of the evening.” The following day, the pair reportedly went shopping together for a sex toy at the Katz Boutique and Sex Shop.
“Her romantic dream”! And only haters could object.
UPDATE II: Thanks to the commenter who found this July 2010 sentencing record for Warren, Pa.:
Paige Moriah Johnson, 19, of 2407 Lenhart Rd., to six to 24 months in a state correctional institution, $825 in fines and fees and pay the cost of prosecution for corruption of minors; and to six to 12 months in a state correctional institution consecutive to the first sentence and undergo a sexual offenders evaluation for corruption of minors. Johnson was ordered to have no contact with victim in the case.
This is evidently the “Paige” whose case drove Kristin Ireland to tears, and it so happens that the next case in the docket is this:
James Edward Vroman, 22, of Centerville, Pa., to 12 to 24 months in state correctional institution, pay the cost of prosecution, $750 in fines and fees and undergo a sexual offenders evaluation for statutory sexual assault; and to three to 12 months in a state correctional institution consecutive to the first sentence and 100 hours community service for interference with custody of children. Vroman was ordered to have no contact with the victim in the case.
So it’s not just females who are doing time for messing with jailbait, but Kristin Ireland weeps no tears for James Vroman.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | June 4, 2013
The case of 18-year-old Kaitlyn Hunt, charged with a felony for having sex with a 14-year-old, has elicited the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, which calls this “behavior that is both fairly innocuous and extremely common.” Well, OK, if 18 and 14 is no problem, how about 13 and 19? And how about a foursome?
Three 19-year-old northwest Indiana men have been charged separately with child molesting involving the same 13-year-old girl, the Post-Tribune is reporting. Charles K. Nafus III, of the 2600 block of County Line Road in Lake Station, Ind., admitted he was the girl’s boyfriend, was aware of her age and that he’d had sex with her numerous times at his home, court records state. Tevin Sevelles Carlisle, of the 700 block of McCool Road in Portage, Ind., also admitted to police he had sex with the girl at Nafus’ home in Lake Station, the probable cause affidavit states. Kelly Rushing Jr., of the 100 block of Beverly Lane in Hobart, Ind., also told police he had sex with the girl while Nafus was present at Rushing’s home, and that the three of them engaged in sexual activity.
This is the fundamental problem with the “Free Kate” crusade: How many loopholes can we create in the law, or how much leniency can be applied in sentencing, before we approach the abyss of sexual anarchy, where anything goes and only “haters” dare object?
If you’re going to cut an 18-year-old some slack for having sex with a 14-year-old in a school toilet (which is merely “high school romance,” according to Kaitlyn Hunt’s father), on what legal grounds do you object to three 19-year-olds gang-banging a 13-year-old?
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | May 30, 2013
Honestly, I had to think a while about this one: Is it fair?
People have been throwing stuff at me on Twitter so fast I can barely keep up with it all. On Tuesday, the “Free Kate” controversy was actually addressed by Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
“What we have here is an open argument made that same-sex sexual relationships should not even be seen as merely equal with opposite sex-relationships . . . but in this case, even legally privileged such that the statutory law or second-degree felony issues at stake in a heterosexual relationship of young people of the same ages would not apply to a same-sex couple.”
That was Tuesday and today is Thursday, and I’ve been focused so hard on the developing story that I didn’t even have time to notice it until a couple hours ago. Meanwhile, I came across some things on social media that would tend to seriously undermine whatever remaining credibility the “Free Kate” cause still has.
Kelley Hunt Smith has praised her daughter, accused sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt, as “wonderful . . . respected and well liked . . . the model student and child.” Similarly, Kaitlyn’s attorney told reporters that the 18-year-old is “a model citizen.” This depiction of Kaitlyn was contradicted by a fellow Sebastian High student who posted a video in which Kaitlyn can be heard inciting her younger sister in a fight with another girl: “Beat her f–king ass, Emily! Beat her ass! Get that bitch!”
Wednesday, after hurling obscenity-laced messages in all directions, Emily Hunt switched her Twitter account status to private. Before she did, however, many of the Emily’s more incriminating messages were screen-capped, including this from March 30 (click image to enlarge):
As I say, I had to think whether it was fair to post this. After all, Emily is a minor and not really competent to . . . Oh, wait.
Yeah, I had to think about it, but I really didn’t have to think long.
Nor was there any question of whether this is relevant, seeing as how (a) it indicates where the Hunt girls get their penchant for obscene language and violence; and (b) the quoted text messages from Kelley Hunt Smith to her minor daughter tell you a lot about the woman who praises Kaitlyn as a “model student and child.”
“Hunt Family Values,” as it were.
Given what we see here and given what we can learn about Kaitlyn Hunt’s value system from the arrest affidavit that describes a sexual affair with a 14-year-old that began in a school toilet stall — what kind of home environment is Kelley Hunt Smith providing for Emily and her other children? Does it seem like these children are the products of a wholesome upbringing? And what else are we likely to learn — what further evidence might prosecutors bring forth — if Kaitlyn and her supporters insist on taking this case to trial?
According to Kelley Hunt Smith, the only reason James and Laurie Smith (whom she named nine times in her May 17 Facebook post) objected to Kaitlyn’s involvement with their 14-year-old daughter is because they are “full of hate and bigotry.”
But would you want your daughter mixed up with trash like that?
And there is more to come, my friends.
Did I mention the Hunts’ lawyer hired a P.R. firm? They should have lots of work to do. Just wait until they see Nagasaki . . .
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Here’s an idea for a truly twisted exploitation movie. For unknown reasons, the US population goes totally insane, and elects a government consisting of leftist freaks so morally warped that workers at the Department of Justice are required to swear an oath of fealty to sexual perversion. Never mind, that’s too outrageous even for low-budget trash when it comes to movies. But not when it comes to our Hopey Changey reality:
The Department of Justice has been accused of religious intolerance and viewpoint discrimination after workers were sent an email directing them to verbally affirm homosexuality, according to a law firm specializing in religious liberty and now representing a DOJ whistleblower.
Liberty Counsel said DOJ employees were emailed a brochure called “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” The brochure was created as a resource from DOJ Pride, an association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of the DOJ. …
Among the directives in the brochure is an order for workers to vocally affirm homosexuality.
“Don’t judge or remain silent,” the brochure read. “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
It’s not enough not to say anything against depravity, which is our new state religion. You must affirm it, thereby explicitly rejecting Christian morality. Otherwise, your career is going nowhere; you will be lucky to keep your job.
Department of Social Justice workers are also instructed to display gay pride stickers. Maybe they are intended to ward off Christians the way the Cross is said to ward off vampires.
Those who don’t conform will be denounced as “intolerant.” The same goes for women who don’t like sharing the restroom with men in skirts.
Language is strictly regulated in Eric Holder’s PC fiefdom:
Workers were also told to use “inclusive” words like partner or significant other — rather than traditional terms like husband or wife. They were also told to use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.
DOJ employees were told to stop using phrases like “gay lifestyle” or “sexual preference” — because those words are “considered by many as offensive.”
Update your Newspeak dictionaries immediately.
I wonder if it got this far in Sodom or Gomorrah.
On tips from Spider and Clingtomyguns
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Commie California Senate Votes To Revoke Boy Scouts’ Nonprofit Status Despite Group Lifting Ban On Gay Scouts…
They actually took it a step further and want to revoke the nonprofit status for allreligious youth groups in the state.
Even as the Boy Scouts of America moves to allow gay youths to join its troops, the California Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would revoke the organization’s nonprofit status because it does not permit the participation of openly gay adults.
“They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians,” Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said as he introduced his bill. “SB 323 brings our laws into line with our values.”
The measure calls for revoking the tax-exempt status of youth groups that discriminate against participants on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification.
While the text of the bill does not specifically mention the Boy Scouts, analyses of the legislation and discussion among senators Wednesday made clear that it targets the organization.
“We’ve given the Boy Scouts ample time to solve their discrimination problem. And they’ve chosen a path that still leads to discrimination,” Lara said of the organization’s recent vote to allow participation by gay youths.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The Boy Scouts of America’s National Council has voted to ease a long-standing ban and allow openly gay boys to be accepted as Scouts.
Of the local Scout leaders voting at their annual meeting in Texas, more than 60 percent supported the proposal.
Under the proposal drafted by the Scouts’ governing board, gay adults will remain barred from serving as Scout leaders.
The outcome is unlikely to end a bitter debate over the Scouts’ membership policy.
Some conservative churches that sponsor Scout units wanted to continue excluding gay youths, in some cases threatening to defect if the ban were lifted. More liberal Scout leaders, while supporting the proposal to accept gay youth, have made clear they want the ban on gay adults lifted as well.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
“The law is what it is, and if it is truly equality the Gay rights activists want, then they have it in this case. . . . You do not get to scream ‘special privileges’ when you break the rules.”
– Doug Hagin, “An undeniable truth, sex sells”
“Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
– Roman Polanski
“Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”
– Colonel Fletcher, The Outlaw Josey Wales
Some perverts get away with it and some perverts go to prison, and there are certainly people walking around scot-free today who have done things worse than what Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt admitted doing to a 14-year-old girl in Sebastian, Florida.
Does this mean Kate Hunt should go free? I think not.
- Kate is gay and the younger girl’s parents are bigots;
- Both girls were in high school together and their sexual activity was consensual, which makes it OK;
- Heterosexual cases involving 18-year-olds and 14-year-olds have been pleaded down to misdemeanors, so it was wrong for Florida prosecutors to have offered Kate Hunt a deal that required her to plead guilty to a felony.
All three of these arguments are flawed:
- Parents do not forfeit their right to the protection of the law merely because of their opinions. Even if it were proven that Jim and Laurie Smith, parents of the younger girl, were particularly prejudiced against homosexuals (an assertion they deny), this does not nullify the Florida law against sex with 14-year-olds. The parents’ motive in reporting the crime doesn’t decriminalize Kaitlyn’s action.
- Kaitlyn Hunt was older than most high school students. I’m grateful to Phil Kerpen (who is more libertarian than conservative, I should mention) for pointing out that Hunt’s birth date (8/14/94) meant that she was already 18 before she even started her senior year in high school, whereas most seniors are 17. Kerpen wondered if Hunt may have been deliberately “held back” a year, a not-uncommon scholastic practice known as “redshirting.” Whatever the explanation, the mere fact of two people going to school together does not void Florida’s law against sex with 14-year-olds, and the same law states specifically that “consent” is not a defense.
- Prosecutorial leniency in some cases cannot be used as an argument that leniency should be extended to all cases, and the discretion of prosecutors requires them to judge each case on its merits. There may be valid reasons why other perpetrators were allowed to plead down to misdemeanor charges, whereas there may also be valid reasons why prosecutors insisted that Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt could only avoid trial by pleading guilty to a felony.
The most likely reason why prosecutors are not caving in to the#FreeKate mob, I suspect, is that this case involves certain aggravating circumstances. For example, the first sexual activity between Hunt and the 14-year-old freshman (which Hunt admitted, according to the arrest affidavit) took place on school property, in a toilet stall.
Do Floridians really want to permit such things? I think not.
Another aggravating circumstance involves the night of Jan. 4, 2013, which is described in the affidavit (“Smith” is the 14-year-old) :
[Smith] told [Sheriff's Department Detective Jeremy Shepherd] that there was one occasion that she ran away from home in January of 2013. [Detective Shepherd] researched this and learned that [Smith] ran away on January 4, 2013. [Smith] stated that Kaitlyn picked her up and took [Smith] back to Kaitlyn’s house at 231 Stony Point Drive, Sebastian, Florida. That night, while in Kaitlyn’s bedroom, [Smith] and Kaitlyn put their fingers inside of each other’s vaginas, put their mouths on each other’s vaginas, and both of them used a vibrator on each other to insert it in each other’s vaginas. . . .
During the interview [with Kaitlyn Hunt] . . . Kaitlyn also confirmed that she put her finger inside of [Smith's] vagina the time that [Smith] ran away from home and they met up. [Detective Shepherd] asked Kaitlyn if she knew it was wrong to have sex with [Smith] due to [Smith] being 14 years old. Kaitlyn stated that she did not think about it because [Smith] acted older.
No further questions at this time, your honor. Defense, your witness.
You see what an open-and-shut case this is? Kaitlyn doesn’t deny what prosecutors would call “digital penetration,” although the younger girl’ s claims about cunnilingus and penetration with a vibrator are evidently still a she-said/she-said situation.
Nevertheless, fingering a 14-year-old is sufficient offense to convict Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt on the felony charge of “lewd and lascivious conduct” under Florida law, and Hunt admits that this occurred in her bedroom on Jan. 4, while the younger girl was a runaway.
The 14-year-old’s parents, Jim and Laurie Smith, say when they woke up the next morning and discovered their daughter missing, they had no idea where she was and feared she had been abducted — every parent’s worst nightmare, a situation that any responsible adult would seek to prevent. Kaitlyn was 18 years old, an adult old enough to be considered responsible and — we might well ask — where were Kaitlyn Hunt’s parents during this Jan. 4 episode?
This is unknown, but I’ve seen enough of the arguments made by Kaitlyn’s mother to believe that she condoned her daughter’s affair with the 14-year-old, and to suspect that Kaitlyn’s home environment was one of permissiveness bordering on negligence. Leaving aside that question, however, the known facts regarding the incident of Jan. 4 qualify as aggravating circumstances which, I think prosecutors will argue, would make them negligent of their own duties if they were to let the defendant plead down to a misdemeanor.
Many of those in the #FreeKate mob have argued — and this would be Number Four on the list of their common sophistries — that the felony charge is wrong because it would require Kaitlyn’s name to be placed permanently on the sex offender registry. This argument, like all their arguments, is false.
The applicable statute includes a “Romeo & Juliet” exemption if the defendant is no more than four years older than the (consenting) victim. The age difference between Kaitlyn and the Smith girl is three years, eight months (44 months), so this exemption would be applicable, and prosecutors said quite clearly that it would be up to the judge at sentencing to determine (as the law provides) whether or not to put Kaitlyn’s name on the sex offender registry.
Most lawyers would probably advise their clients in such a circumstance to accept the deal, but Kaitlyn turned it down, and the prospect of a June 20 trial in this case is fraught with peril on both sides.
The 14-year-old (who turned 15 just last month) might be required to testify, and there is the prospect that Kaitlyn’s lawyers, having given her bad advice so far, might be foolish enough to have her testify in her own defense, which could set up a dramatic cross-examination by the prosecution. A trial like that might become the biggest tabloid-TV drama since the O.J. Simpson case.
The back-and-forth stuff between pro- and anti-Kaitlyn factions on the Internet is just a warm-up for the big show, but like the man said, “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”
Right now, I don’t know what angers me more: The deceptive sophistry practiced by the #FreeKate mob, or the ostentatiously disinterested poses of legalistic even-handedness struck by Jazz Shaw and Doug Mataconis. People who care about America’s future should be angry about this case and, personally, I’m so angry I’m starting to get angry at other people for not being angry about it.
If we can’t draw the line here, folks, there is no hope at all.
Supporters of Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt are making flawed and dangerous arguments which, if we don’t argue back against them, could subvert the rule of law and bring about a culture of sexual anarchy, where school children are violated and corrupted “consensually” and parents have no legal recourse to prevent such outrageous behavior.
Are judges and prosecutors in Indian River County, Florida, reading this blog? Are the citizens of Florida reading it? Are readers concerned about the direction of our culture sharing these arguments on your Facebook pages and via e-mail with your friends?
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Will you let it be said that you did nothing?
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
At last some honesty from a moonbat. We all know that the Left is not on the level with its sudden urgent concern that homosexuals have their sexual liaisons sanctified by the government as legitimate marriages. Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen, as quoted by Micah Clark, spells out what they are actually up to:
“It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry [each other], but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
To “fundamentally transform,” as Obama put it regarding his plans for America, is to destroy.
On a tip from Wilberforce.
There was no word in Newspeak for freedom. We can look forward to an English language in which there is no word for marriage. And what does freedom mean anyway in a country where most things are banned, but we are constantly throwing holidays to celebrate how free we are?
But if marriage is no longer refers to a natural social institution, but now means a civil union recognized by the state, then why stop at two? Gay rights advocates insist that there is some magic difference between polygamy and gay marriage. There isn’t any difference except the number. And if we’re not going to be bound by any antiquated notion that marriage is an organic institution between man and woman, then why should we be bound by mere number?
Surely in our enlightened age and time, it can be possible for large groups of consenting adults to tie their confusing knots together in any number from 2 to 2,000.
True marriage equality would completely open up the concept. But it’s not actually equality that we’re talking about. It’s someone’s idea of the social good. And the social good is served by gay marriage, but not by polygamy.
The question is whose social good is it?
Equality and justice are words that the left uses to cloud the question of who advocates the causes and who benefits from them. Who decides that the cause of justice and equality is served by limiting marriage to two gay men, rather than four gay men, three bisexual men, two women and a giraffe?
The rhetoric of equality asserts a just cause while overlooking the social good. Rights are demanded. The demand is absolute and the logic for it remains left behind in a desk drawer on the wrong side of the table. Instead there are calls for empathy. “If you only knew a gay couple.” Hysterical condemnations. “I’m pretty sure you’re the devil”, one recent email to me began. And a whole lot of vague promises about the good things that will follow once we’re all paying for it.
We aren’t truly moving toward anarchy or some libertarian order, but a calculated form of repression in which shrill demands substitute for legal guidelines and those who scream the loudest get the most rights.
The new freedoms are largely random and chaotic. Donate enough money to the right people while helping out the left and a special addition to the marriage split-level house will be carved out for you. Why? Because there will be a lot of yelling. Naturally. And if the polygamists yell loudly enough and donate enough money, they’ll get their own marriage expansion as well because that is how things work now.
There is no longer a fixed notion of rights. The trappings of equality and angry causes are hollow. The legal doctrine on which courts make their decisions are targets in search of arrows, emotions hunting around for precedents to wrap them in. These decisions are not rational, but rather rationalizations. Their only anchor is a new role for government in protecting any group that is officially marginalized.
The old Bill of Rights extended rights irrespective of group membership. The new one wipes out universal rights and replaces them with particular privileges. Entire amendments may sink beneath the waves, but a few groups get comfortable deck chairs on the Titanic.
Why is one group protected rather than another? Why do gay activists get a government-bonded right, complete with Federal enforcement, while polygamy is outlawed? The only answers are rationalizations. With morality sinking fast and few common values that the people in charge will accept, there is no longer a common value system to rely on.
Progressive morality is constantly being reshaped in tune to the whims of the left. It can’t be relied upon, because it isn’t there. The only thing fixed about it is the need to fight for the oppressed, which not coincidentally at all is also the shaky civil rights era legal doctrine on which the whole modern house of cards rests.
Since the nature of oppression and the identification of oppressed groups is open for debate, the legal doctrine means nothing. Every Democratic presidential candidate was against gay marriage in 2008 and for it now. What changed? Nothing, except the money changing hands and sitcoms about gay couples. And the latter is what it comes down to. Instead of church and state, we are stuck with sitcom and state where the existence of a television comedy is a reflection of national values.
And what happens when one of the burgeoning shows about polygamous marriages becomes a big hit? Then we’ll have no choice but to ratify polygamous marriage equality because that’s the new national values system and the television ratings prove that everyone is clearly down with it.
Once fixed rights made way for identity politics, we traded legal guarantees of freedom for government oversight of a confusing caste system in which some people have more rights than others based on the amount of rights they claim not to have, but everyone has fewer rights than they did before because rights are now arbitrary and the arbitrators work for the government.
Identity politics made rights competitive. The only way to win is to play. And the only way to play is to claim oppression. And if you don’t do a good job of it, good luck getting a good spot in the diversity quotas for college, business and government. But it has also made rights meaningless.
The new slogan is that gun control should be enacted because the former Congresswoman Giffords “deserves a vote”. Giffords already has a vote. So do millions of gun owners. That’s how it works. But votes are no longer weighed equally. The oppressed, even by a random shooting spree, get more votes than others, so long as their oppression is officially recognized and endorsed. The Giffords Vote is supposed to not only trump millions of actual votes, but also the Second Amendment.
And why not? Gay marriage lost in multiple referendums, but those results were set aside by Federal judges for being oppressive. The same thing happened with illegal aliens. Now everyone is evolving on those issues. After all, no one wants to be the bad mean oppressor. And so the actual votes are trumped by the vote of the oppressed and actual rights make way for special privileges.
The grants of new rights are oppressive because there are no longer any fixed boundaries of rights. Instead gay rights compels wedding photographers, cake shops and even churches to cater to gay weddings regardless of their own moral values. Religious freedom, which is in the Constitution, has to take a seat at the back of the bus to the new rights, which aren’t.
There is no system for keeping rights from colliding with or overrunning one another. The only
governing legal mandate is preventing oppression and that means government arbitrators deciding who is screaming, “Help, help, I’m being repressed!” the loudest and with the most sincerity.
A system in which the authorities grant rights based on who can best make the case to them that their rights have been taken away is a bad idea. It’s an especially bad idea in a system like ours which is rapidly sliding in a direction in which the authorities are the sole arbiters of who should have any rights at all. If your oppressed status depends on your oppressors determining whether you are truly oppressed, then the only people who will have rights are those people whose rights the oppressors have not taken away by certifying them as oppressed.
It would be a dreadful simplification to call this lunatic state of affairs Orwellian or even Machiavellian. It makes even Kafka’s worlds seem positively stodgy by comparison. It is a trial where the only people to be found not guilty are those who already been convicted. It’s a system that favors the people who claim to be dispossessed by the system. It is an absurd self-negation that exists as a mathematical impossibility and a living satire.