Liberal Lawmakers Love Their Sex Freaks and Hate Christian Ministers
The scenario below is somewhat extreme as the 1st Amendment should protect speech -- but many exceptions to 1st Amendment protection have already been recognized and, in cases such as the ones envisioned below, upholding the Amendment's protections probably depends on a presently very thin margin of Supreme Court votes. It is also true that the proposed law covers only violent attacks but it is not far-fetched to envision a preacher being charged as an accomplice in such attacks or an inciter of such attacks. Convictions on very thin grounds are far from unknown -- JR
If you’re a twisted adult who gets pleasure from having sex with 5-year-old boys (like Duke University’s Frank Lombard), or you like to shop for dates at the Metro Zoo, or enjoy smearing your body with feces and/or dabbin’ a little urine on your earlobes as you prep for sexy time with the corpse you dressed up like Bette Davis in your basement, then more than likely you are thanking Dionysus and your unclean demon that Liberals are running DC.
Yep, with the Liberals in the house your deviant behavior—along with over 500 additional unmentionables—could potentially be legitimized and federally protected against anyone who says you’re a crazy bastard who should undergo chemical castration and have your frontal lobe scraped for your aberrant bents.
In the Ted Kennedy spawned wording of S.909, The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, it appears that the public verbalization that one thinks an individual is a bubble off level if engaging in the anomalous and illegal aspects of the bumping of uglies could, in the not too distant future, get the verbalizer in a legal pickle of mammoth portions. If S.909 gets through, the goobers who like to do odd and often criminal stuff with the gibbering monkey in their pants will be insulated from legitimate insults and criticisms, no matter how true the critique because that’s “hate,” which could, as we’re being told, lead to a crime.
As stated, this bill does not just protect Brad and Chad from the supposed “hate speech” of a Rev. John MacArthur, Jr. exposition of Romans 1:18-32. Oh, no. It also pretty much defends all “sexual orientation(s),” “gender,” and “gender identity” flakiness as federally-protected classes—up to 547 types of sexually-twisted behaviors, in all—including:
• Incest – sex with one’s offspring (a crime, of course)
• Necrophilia – sexual relations with a corpse, also a crime
• Pedophilia – sex with an underage child, another crime
• Zoophilia – bestiality, a crime in numerous states
• Voyeurism – a criminal offense in most states
• Frotteurism – rubbing against an unknown person’s body in public
• Coprophilia – sexual arousal from feces
• Urophilia – sexual arousal from urine
Yes, in the politically correct climate of Obamaland, they don’t want us to—cough—“freak” when Chester passes by sportin’ a pink tutu, unlaced black hiking boots, milk jugs duct-taped to his head, and his left hand spot-welded to his crotch, Wacko Jacko style. I’m sorry. I meant Saint Michael Jackson style.
If S.909 gets the green light, any public denunciation of a perv boy’s penchants, particularly if it stems from Christians quoting God on the topic, will be verboten verbiage if said legislation blows through with senatorial support.
This means that just as the governments of Norway, Sweden and Canada have criminalized certain parts of the Bible, the Amerikan Liberals too want to duct tape the few American pastors who read particular parts of the Verbum Dei which state that checking Jedediah’s oil is a sin, and so is having sex with children and goats. Because, you see, a caring pastor’s denunciation of such sexually-warped actions could be linked to some loser’s criminal misbehavior against those that practice such things and could make the goodly parson, because he called a spade a spade, complicit in the hate crime. What nonsense.
For more info and to let your senator know you think this bill, which will eradicate common sense, our religious liberties, and the Christians’ freedom of speech, is BS log on to http://www.capwiz.com/gopusa/issues/bills/?bill=13297951 to do something about it.
British prisoners on run cannot be named 'due to privacy rights'
Prisoners on the run from Holleseley Bay prison cannot be identified because it would breach their rights to privacy, the Ministry of Justice has said. Civil servants have refused to name inmates who have fled prison even though individual police forces will often identify them if they pose a risk to the public. They say releasing their names would breach obligations under the Data Protection Act.
The latest development emerged in response to Freedom Of Information requests to name inmates on the run rom the prison near Woodbridge, Suffolk. The open prison which has sea views and once held Tory peer Jeffrey Archer is known as Holiday Bay because of its easy-going regime. The Ministry of Justice confirmed 39 prisoners had absconded from Hollesley Bay between January 1, 2007, to March 31, 2009. It also provided a general list of crimes they were sentenced for and confirmed that 16 involved violence. The offenders included nine robbers, two serving sentences for attempted robbery, one for wounding and four others for grievous bodily harm.
But the ministry refused to say how many - if any - had been recaptured, saying their identities had to be protected from third parties.
John Gummer, the Suffolk Coastal MP, said he was aghast at the decision and promised to raise the matter in parliament with Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary. He said: "It's intolerable and entirely unacceptable. There is no sense in which a prisoner's identity is a private matter. In my view he sacrifices that when he becomes a prisoner. "This annoys me very much indeed. We have gone mad if this is what we are doing. "What I will be doing is putting down a question to the Justice Minister on Monday to ask for the information. I shall insist this is information that should be in the public domain. "I think this will prove Hollesley Bay has ceased to be treated as an open prison in the historic way, but is now receiving prisoners who would not have been sent to it 10 years ago."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Whilst it is in the public interest to be aware of offenders who have escaped from custody as they may help in identifying the absconders thereby enabling the police to detain them; it is not in the public interest to prejudice any enquiries or operations the police may be conducting into apprehending the absconder. "It is the general policy of the Ministry of Justice not to disclose, to a third party, personal information about another person. "This is because the Ministry of Justice has obligations under the Data Protection Act and in law generally to protect this information."
In January 2007 Derbyshire Police refused to release pictures of two convicted murderers on the run from jail. Chief Constable David Coleman said Jason Croft and Michael Nixon posed "no risk'' and the force had to consider the Human Rights Act and data protection laws when asked to publish photographs. The force later denied human rights had been a factor.
British Couple lose custody of children after 'school security concerns'
A couple have lost custody of their children after the father asked for permission to pick them up from inside the school gates. The man, a business consultant, was concerned that two of his three children – who are all under 13 – might be at risk of abduction because of the family's connections. Telling the school that the children were related to European royalty and that his brother was a senior Army officer, the father is said to have asked for permission – which was granted – to pick up his children inside the two schools attended by his eldest children.
However, one of the head teachers went to the police because of her "concerns". This led to the parents' background being investigated and concerns being raised, initially over the father's mental state and then for the safety of his children.
Lord Monckton, who has investigated the allegations, described the episode as "the worst case of child abduction by social services that I have ever come across". He accused a social worker and a police officer, both female, of plotting together against the couple, who live in the east of England. Lord Monckton has now reported the two women to the local police force and council for alleged improper conduct.
Lord Monckton claims that on May 18 a social worker approached the father as he arrived, with his wife, to pick up one of their children from school. The father has told the peer that when he was asked to accompany her, he demanded to see her identification but she refused to show him. He claims he was then handcuffed by two police officers.
His wife was also detained when she went to remonstrate, and their youngest child was taken away screaming, according to the family's account. Later all three children were taken into care.
The father was then detained under the Mental Health Act, although his wife was released later the same day. "However, the father's supporters say that on May 28, he appeared before a mental health tribunal and was given a complete discharge; yet his children remain in care.
The Sunday Telegraph has had no direct contact with the family. It is understood that the social worker and police officer have justified their actions in statements to a family court. A council spokesman said: "We have no comment to make because the matter is in front of the courts."
Classical Liberals Led the Battle for Civil Rights, New Book Shows
Since its emergence, the United States’ two-party political system has been criticized for polarizing public opinion. Instead of objective deliberation of such major issues as race relations, partisanship has too often undermined the process and distorted the outcome. One group of thinkers, however, has refused to be defined by either conservative or liberal classifications—classical liberals have shaped the history of the nation by fighting for abolitionism and the allied struggles against Chinese exclusion, abuse of native Americans, Japanese internment, and Jim Crow and other racial distinctions in the law. Nonetheless, the nation’s preoccupation with left-versus-right politics has overshadowed how classical liberals have been decisive in shaping the history of race and liberty in America.
Race and Liberty in America explains the major themes of the anti-racist, classical liberal tradition of individual liberty and equality, demonstrating how it has inspired individuals to improve race relations in the United States. Classical liberals have advocated freedom from governmental interference, abolition of prejudicial law, equality under a uniform rule of law guaranteed by the Constitution, and market-based entrepreneurial opportunity.
The book offers numerous documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the 2006 Open Letter on Immigration and beyond, as well as government statutes, party platforms, and speeches that demonstrate how classical liberalism was at the forefront of the fight to change America’s racial inequality. Each chapter investigates a specific time period in American history, ranging from the Revolution to the present, and addresses major events and concerns. The commentary assembled here covers the antislavery movement, post-Civil War reconstruction, Progressive Era, Republican era of the 1920s, the Great Depression and World War II, and the civil rights era. Citing such influential Americans as Thomas Jefferson, Louis Marshall, and Frederick Douglass, plus those missing from other books and heretofore lost to history, Bean demonstrates the major impact of classical liberal thought on race relations and investigates how it has helped shape both law and public opinion.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.