Reflections, Reflections

Another topic that the media did us a dis-favor in not exploring is the question of sexual age of consent.

I would like to know more about the age of consent issue in Washington DC. Why is it 16? Since when has it been so? Who pushed it to be 16?

From ace, one more discussion about the causes for sexual desire - which is actually a better word and concept than the ridiculous term "orientation." I've slightly touched upon some of the problems with the concept of "orientation" in other posts (see a comment I post here at the end), but I really need to sit down and do a whole post on it. But I digress, here is my understanding as to why the two dominant explanations to human desire are both ignorant and detrimental to our progress in understanding human beings and our complex psychology.

---

I think some people *are* born gay

Right, and some people are born pedophiles (children orientation), some are born pederasts (homo adolescent orientation), and others podophiles (feet sexual orientation), and still others diaperphiles (guess what orientation that is)- and the latter being pro-homos' case.

You look at a baby's face and you just know it: there's a pedophile right there! Completely sexually diseased right from the start. Because nothing impacts the brain of a human being from the time they are born until they reach puberty or adulthood with whatever sexual/emotional dysfunction they develop.

Yup.

Isn't the depth and the breadth of the genetic explanation to everything mind-blowing?

Posted by alessandra at October 26, 2006 01:44 PM

---

But Allesandra, if people aren't genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?

Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing. But the way I felt when I met my wife, for example, was extremely powerful. Not just mentally, but in my gut, too. I won't say it was "irresistable," because we remained chaste through a very long courtship. But it was much more than a fleeting thought or an idea.

I don't know what it is like to be gay, but some people say that they have the same sort of total feeling of attraction and that it is not something that they can ignore (And I am talking about gay people who have chosen celibacy). These people feel no attraction to members of the opposite sex, but for the sake of their religious beliefs have chosen to live without romantic companionship.

I think you shouldn't just pretend that these people are imagining their orientation. I mean, how many people do you know who will sacrifice the hope of romantic love for the love of God? There aren't many people like that. They are more courageous than I am. And I would be reluctant to just say they are the same as a pedophile or something.

Posted by Well at October 26, 2006 02:53 PM

---

I don't know genetics, but how many people were surprised when the little boy from "Who's the Boss" came out of the closet a year or so ago? Did that little nancy-boy choose to be gay when he was 6? That used to depress me, here he is, in his formative, should be a horny little bugger and he's growing up around Alisa Milano and he's fricking gay! Instead of a horny little bugger, he was a little buggerer. That's why, if there is a God, He has a sense of humor I can appreciate.

My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10. He actually tried to be straight, he was married at 18 and a grandpa at 40, but he's been exclusively with men since he was about 22 or so.

I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
"Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence."

Posted by Veeshir at October 27, 2006 06:40 AM

---

But Allesandra, if people aren't genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?
=====================
I guess you assumed (incorrectly) that there are only two ways we can theorize or understand human desire. Either we, humans, are like reptiles, ants, and other creatures that have their entire brain controlled by instinct (which is really what the "genes causes homosexuality" people say) or we, humans, choose every psychological dynamics that happens in our brains before it happens. (it's all a choice). I don't think any of these explanations is either useful, or true.

Both of these explanation attempts do not take into account how extremely complex the human brain and our psychology is. Also, they do not take into account the most fundamental fact about humans, and that is that humans develop(including dysfunctionally). Humans change tremendously since the time they are born, and so does the human psycho-emotional structure, including all the dynamics therein. 15 years of experiences since a baby is born will have profound impact on the functioning of that person's brain, on that person's psychology.

So, when you say feeling desire for diapers is a choice, you are wrong, because the desire comes first, and then the person has the choice of what to do with it. A person does not intellectually think "I want to feel desire for a diaper at 3 o'clock" and then it happens. That's not how desire works.

At the same time, we all receive millions of messages, emotional and mind shaping, that affect how we desire, what we desire, and the choices and attitudes and decisions we make about our desires. That is cultural.

Similarly, our culture does not encourage your average Joe to be a diaperphilic, neither a pedophilic, but people end up that way.

I think homosexuality is dysfunctional, it is a dysfunction of a healthy heterosexuality, just as you have dozens of other dysfunctions that can be found in heterosexuals regarding human sexuality. Therefore the very idea that homosexuality equals heterosexuality is invalid.

Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:08 AM

---

Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing.

Why is liking diapers or whatever obviously a wacky cultural thing when other things aren't? You think they CHOSE to get get turned on by diapers?

Whatever the cause of it, I don't see how you so simply distinguish "liking diapers or whatever" from any other latent sexual impulse. It seems to me you've made a knee-jerk, arbitrary judgement here.

Posted by Entropy at October 27, 2006 11:25 AM

---

My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10.
=======================
Well, there you go. I hadn't yet heard that genes determined a person's orientation towards baking cookies. Is there something particularly sexual about baking cookies that I missed? or does it have more to do with gender roles? with differences between femininity and masculinity? with how attached a child may feel to one of their primary caretakers? with feelings of emotional safety? or with a thousand other psycho-emotional-cultural factors?

I don't think I have the link anymore, maybe I do, I need to look for it. But there is a really interesting testimony of this guy who used to be homosexual that wrote at length about how many psycho-emotional problems he had with masculinity, which is something that goes to the depth of our psychology structure and development. And as he was able to work out these complex things, his "orientation" changed. Just as some pedophiles who actually worked out a lot of their immensely profound psycho-emotional problems began to have a more adult sexual orientation.

What was happening with your brother's entire psycho-social structure when he was a child? do you know? maybe it is more complex than you assume.

Posted by at October 27, 2006 11:27 AM

---

I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
"Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence."
Posted by Veeshir at
=====================
As a group, non-heterosexuals are very violent (just like straights) and they are not being prosecuted, just like the majority of heterosexuals exploiters, harassers, and abusers.

So, your little LGBT clique does a lot more harm to society than any comparison to any anti-homosexual crime.

The day you denounce a single crime perpetrated by non-heterosexuals, you will be in a better moral position to cry "wolf" about how much violence homosexuals suffer.

Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:32 AM

---

---

I found a past comment of mine regarding some of the problems with the concept of "orientation:"

I think the way pro-homosexuals structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly dubious construct of "sexual orientation." Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being that results in homosexuality or bisexuality.

One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal ("sexual orientation").

I also find interesting to see that pro-homosexuals only use this "sexual orientation" label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation.

Response to

"Howard Goodman: Naked confessions of Foley's priest are hard to stomach - Now, that's a relief: It was only saunas and massages in the nude, skinny-dipping and fondling."
Sunday Oct 22 | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

There are many important things that came out of the Catholic Church scandal, including:
- a greater awareness of how much sexual abuse is entrenched in every corner of society, even in the ones deemed the holiest;
- the first and only chance for many of the victims to put forth a lawsuit regarding their ordeal;
- the punishment for men who destroyed the well-being and lives of many vulnerable kids.

However, there are other aspects of the media coverage of the Catholic Church scandal that have been detrimental regarding the problem of sexual exploitation in society.

A recently released study has shown that 81% of the priest abusers exploited male adolescents, and not small (prepubescent) children - or girls. In the great majority of cases there was no physical violence involved, it was expressly a homosexual case of exploitation or abuse, not "pedophile" abuse (pedo as in children).

The media, which for the most part is obsessed with pro-homosexuality, insistently hid this fact from the public. Why is this a grave problem? Because awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals exploit minors is essential for action to be taken in every case where it occurs, just as awareness that priests abuse kids was necessary to break through the cloud of denial that often hanged in a Church cover-up. The same can be said regarding society's denial of women abusing children.

When many of the boys in the Catholic Church scandal tried to tell someone about their abuse, the reaction was often one of extreme denial. The Church and others would also attack the victim for suggesting "such a bad thing" about a priest. The Church's powerful lawyers often informally (and sometimes formally) bullied the victims into silence. In a set of attitudes and behaviors that profoundly mimics the Catholic Church hierarchy, pro-homosexuals often insist that homosexuals do not abuse minors, period. This is as monstrous a lie as saying that priests do not abuse minors, or that women don't either. What this creates is an environment of denial that makes it virtually impossible for other victims to come foward and seek justice.

Read this letter to the editors of Beaver County Times regarding the ACLU – written by Dan Reeping – Oct. 12, 2006:

" The writer [of Thursday's editorial "Blind Eye" ] does not understand the legal problems the superintendent of the pretend school district would be subject to if he started an investigation of a gay teacher or gay person without iron-clad proof of sexual activity.

If the superintendent would start an investigation of a gay with e-mails similar to those sent by Foley (before the text messages), the ACLU would bring suit immediately against the superintendent, and the district would pay millions.

The e-mails did not demonstrate any real indication of being of a sexual nature. Therefore, any questions or suggestions using these e-mails that a gay communicating with a student was improper would be considered harassment of a gay.

By law, the superintendent must have a blind eye until he has proof of a crime. That isn't the way it should be, but that's the law. "

You have pointed to how sickening Foley's mind is. What I find sickening is how much the media and society likes to narrow their attention to priest abusers. Are they joking to themselves that the only sexual exploiters of minors in the US are confined to the priesthood?

Pro-homosexuals also insist that the majority of abusers are heterosexual males. Although the assertion is disputable depending on the way the measurement is taken, or the population studied, the numbers game is besides the point. A case of abuse is not life-damaging because it produces one statistical number or another. Take the case of gender. A minor that is sexually abused by a woman does not suffer less than one abused by a man, even though women have a lower statistical total of perpetrators than males. The focus of attention should be on investigating perpetrators who are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, priests, rabbis, lay teachers, counselors, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, coaches, that is, everyone. One category is not more special or more innocent than another. Even if the majority of perpetrators are male, does that mean, for example, that the victims of female perpetrators should be relegated to invisibility, silence, trivialization, and consequently, lack of justice?

Every time a pro-homosexual says homosexuals don't abuse minors, or that the majority of abusers are heterosexuals, what they are really doing is creating a climate of denial about the countless real cases that exist where the perpetrators are homosexuals and impeding preventive action. Similarly, compared to the millions of estimated abuse cases, only a tiny minority of sexual abusers are priests. Should we then divert attention from all the real cases where the perpetrators are priests and focus only on the big total of "lay men?" Are the victims less important because of the statistical total of their perpetrator category? Should we systematically erase the fact that such abusers are priests, just like the media has done with the homosexual factor in the Catholic Church and other cases?

This brings us to the tawdry PR excuse that this Republican leadership put forth. Let us not forget that most of these Republican leaders are libertarians, not social conservatives, which means they are quite pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography, and possibly pro-prostitution - as long as it's not publicly stated so. One of the Foley excuses put forth by the Republican leadership was saying that had they acted on the first ambiguous but non-sexually explicit Foley emails, the media would have tarred and feathered them as "homophobic." The latter part of the excuse is totally true, but responsible people do not go along with a cowardly media obsessed with pro-homosexuality - they fight it. Responsible people do not fail to investigate homosexual exploitation of minors because they are afraid of being slandered as "homophobic." Responsible people investigate both the possible homosexual exploitation and they denounce the dishonest manipulations of a pro-homosexual media that silence awareness regarding homosexual abuse.

I have no doubt the Republican leadership knew about Foley's sick homosexual mind and behavior, and, like the Catholic Church, preferred to turn a blind eye instead of taking firm and responsible measures. Now they want to find someone to blame, so it's all the liberal homosexuality-obsessed media's fault. It is not.

However, let us imagine that they had gone to the media with the first set of emails and made Foley resign. Can you imagine the "Gay Witch Hunt," "Republican Homophobia Hysteria," headlines that our dominant pro-homosexual media would have screamed? "Tar and feather" is an euphemism to what the media would have done to such Republicans. The media reaction would be one of extreme attack on the Republicans for suggesting "such a bad thing" about a homosexual. Because, just like Foley and the Catholic Church, the media may make all kinds of speeches blasting the exploitation of minors, but, like Foley, many of their actions or inactions are one of the cornerstones of the current system of sexual violence that exists in society. And this also includes the media's pro-homosexual attitudes which destroy awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals are, like other categories, abusers and exploiters. The media, by creating a climate of denial and silence, is profoundly failing the countless victims of harassment, exploitation, or abuse where the perpetrators are non-heterosexuals.

And this is just as sickening as what Foley has done.

(alessandrab.blogspot.com)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

Characteristics of Perpetrators

Most States define perpetrators of child abuse and neglect as parents and other caretakers (such as relatives, babysitters, and foster parents) who have harmed a child in their care. It is important to note that States define the term "caretaker" differently. Harm caused to a child by others (such as acquaintances or strangers) may not be considered child abuse but rather may be considered a criminal matter. [So, in order to get a fuller picture, one would need to add up the two type of stats - has anyone done that? I wonder if that changes the gender proportion of perpetrators]

According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System's most current report, Child Maltreatment 2004, of the approximately 872,000 child abuse and neglect victims in 2004, the largest percentage of perpetrators (78.5 percent) were parents. Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.5 percent, residential facility staff for 0.2 percent, and childcare providers for 0.7 percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 4.1 percent of perpetrators, while legal guardians accounted for 0.2 percent and foster parents accounted for 0.4 percent.

In 2004, 57.8 percent of child abuse and neglect perpetrators were females and 42.2 percent were males. For the most part, female perpetrators were younger than male perpetrators; of the women who were perpetrators, 44.4 percent of females were younger than 30 years of age, compared to 34.1 percent of males.

More than one-half (57.9%) of all perpetrators were found to have neglected one or more children in 2004. Slightly more than 10 percent (10.3%) of perpetrators physically abused children, and 6.9 percent sexually abused children. Fifteen percent (15.5%) of all perpetrators were associated with more than one type of maltreatment.

There were variations in these overall patterns when the relationship of perpetrator to the child victim was considered. Of the parents who maltreated children in 2004, 2.6 percent committed sexual abuse, while 62.9 percent committed neglect. Of the perpetrators who were friends or neighbors, nearly three-quarters committed sexual abuse while 9.9 percent committed neglect.

Washblade - April 2-2004:

Foley is a co-sponsor of separate bills that would ban employment discrimination against gays and give the federal government authority to prosecute anti-gay hate crimes.

Foley later dropped out of the Senate race. His withdrawal came several months after an alternative newspaper in West Palm Beach reported that Foley is gay.

Shortly after the Washington Blade reported the allegations in the West Palm paper, Foley held a press conference with mainstream Florida newspapers announcing that he would not answer questions regarding his sexual orientation. He has denounced stories about his alleged homosexuality as the “revolting and unforgivable” work of “rumor mongers.”

But when Foley dropped out of the race, he cited his father’s illness, rather than the gay issue, as his reason for withdrawing from the race. At the time of his withdrawal, Foley had a substantial fund-raising lead over his opponents.


Broward LCR lobbies Foley
A lobbying effort by members of the Broward Log Cabin Republicans may have helped to persuade Foley to come out against the proposed amendment.

“You can be sure that Log Cabin has not been sitting on its hands about this,” said Andy Eddy, Broward LCR board chair and director of communications. “Everyone in Log Cabin has been approaching him and talking to him about this.”

Eddy said he thinks the personal appeals may have persuaded Foley to come down off the fence on the constitutional amendment issue. “A lot of people have to think this out, especially around election time,” Eddy said.

Michael Albetta, president of the Dolphin Democrats, a South Florida gay Democratic club, compared Foley’s earlier silence on the marriage amendment to “prominent Jews in the United States who remained silent during the Holocaust.” He thinks the recent flurry of Republicans coming out against the amendment convinced Foley that it was safe to oppose it.

“I think he goes with the wind,” Albetta said.

Foley’s district, which once included gay neighborhoods in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, was changed in a Florida redistricting plan approved by a Republican-controlled state legislature. A district map on Foley’s office Web site shows he no longer represents any part of Broward County, where Fort Lauderdale is located, and his district’s portion of the city of West Palm Beach was reduced to a tiny section.

The newly carved district snakes along the state’s east coast from Royal Palm Beach, traveling north to Fort Pierce, and around Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades to Port Charlotte, which is located on the Gulf of Mexico.

Ditto said he wasn’t sure if the makeup of the new district included a more conservative-leaning constituency that would be more supportive of an anti-gay constitutional amendment than Foley’s old district.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) now represents the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach areas that were once part of Foley’s district. Hastings has said he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and will vote against it if it reaches the House floor.

Phil LaPadula contributed to this report.

---

And the Homo Cabin Republicans had never heard even a tiny bit about Foley's pederastic behavior? All the pages knew it, but the Homo Cabin Republicans did not? Right.

Or maybe, just like it happened to Foley, if an investigation were conducted, we would discover Foley isn't the only active pederast in Congress? Isn't the purpose of screaming "how revolting and unforgivable it is to expose certain truths about sexuality attitudes and behaviors," exactly to stimy and cover up those truths which are the most ugly? And which encompass the greatest hypocrisy and lack of character?

Meanwhile, noting that the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans quickly erased a photo of Mark Foley from their website," LaBarbera said. "Too bad Foley's teenaged victims and their parents won't be able to erase the effects of his twisted behavior from their minds so easily."

And do the Log Cabin Republicans think everyone else is as stupid to think they didn't know what Foley was like in his pederastic homosexuality ? How long have the Homo Cabin Republicans been sitting on this bit of knowledge about Mark Foley? My guess is at least a decade, nothing shorter than five years.

(And I had missed this!) A pearl of a satire so very wonderfully written that it surpasses the truth:

Mark Foley Enters Alcoholism Rehab; Gambling Rehab Next
By Phil Maggitti
Oct 3, 2006, 07:27

LAPLAND, Fla. - Mark Foley (R-FL) quietly slipped into a rehab facility for alcoholism treatment last weekend. In a statement read by his attorney, Mr. Foley said, "I strongly believe I am an alcoholic and have accepted the need for immediate treatment for alcoholism and other behavioral problems."

Mr. Foley, a 52-year-old bachelor who co-chaired the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, abruptly quit the House of Representatives last Friday after reports had surfaced that he had sent lewd e-mail messages containing sexually explicit emoticons to boys working as pages.

Mr. Foley's attorney, David Roth, would not identify the facility that Mr. Foley had entered, nor would he say how long Mr. Foley would be there. Mr. Roth did say, however, that his client would "most likely" enter a rehab facility for compulsive gambling after "successfully concluding" his alcoholism treatment.

"Mark is committed to getting to the bottom of his problem, no matter how painful that process might be," said Mr. Roth. "If, god forbid, alcoholism and gambling treatments are not effective, Mark is prepared to undergo rehabilitation for compulsive shopping, binge eating, and any other addiction that might help him get to the root cause of his online behavior."

In related news, a spokesperson for the Log Cabin Republicans , a national gay and lesbian Republican grassroots organization, denied that the words log or cabin have sexual connotations.

In other related news, President Bush challenged Democrats in Congress to support the passage of the Gay Pages Amendment, which would prohibit "knowingly homosexual teenagers" from serving as pages in Congress.

Oct 22, 2006 — I was disappointed to see that Todd Platts' response to the Foley scandal is that "we might need to rethink the congressional page program." ("Platts: Fix Page Program," Oct. 8).

Fix the page program? Is he serious? The only thing wrong with the page program is that it places young men and women in close proximity to Congress - a Congress whose members allegedly include pedophiles, and whose leadership is more interested in retaining power than in protecting young people.

The answer is to fix Congress. The time has come to expect more from our elected officials. A good starting point would be to demand that every congressman demonstrate morals that are better than those of the average inmate in the state prison system. Voters should hold the Republican leadership accountable for looking the other way for at least a year. Republicans win elections claiming that their "family values" are important. Maybe the Republicans deserve to lose an election when they let us all down.

MICHAEL FASANO
HALLAM

So here I was sitting near a building that has a wi-fi connection and a place for people to sit down with their computers and because of this, it attracts a lot of students. I see a young blind buy with a walking stick start to come down the path that kind of goes by this side of the building. He seemed to be counting his steps and not really know the area. At first I wasn't sure if he was learning the terrain on a calm Saturday afternoon, if he was exploring the area or what. I kept looking up to see if he seemed lost, feeling unsure if I should get up and go ask him if he needed help. But then I wondered if that would bother him, if it would convey some helplessness prejudice, so I decided to wait and see if he would yield more clues as to what he was doing. He came across the end of the path and hit the road, having passed the building. He did a ninety degree turn, now starting to go around the front of the building but he seemed not to be finding his way. Just then two students passed near him and he asked for their help. Then they helped him come and sit down near the side of the building - which was what he had been looking for. He took out his laptop from his backpack, put on earphones, and proceeded to surf the Internet. Very cool.

Click to find out! (too funny)

Plus, great comment on Madonna at same link.

Dumb Ox News really does a great job with adding images to his commentary. One of the best use of images on blogs commenting current issues that I've seen so far.

Washington Blade:

Homo political activists and Democratic leaders are already planning post-election strategies and priorities for an expectedly bluer and more progressive House of Representatives.

The preliminary plans, which could change wildly based on the outcome of next month’s elections, put a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act atop the wish list of gay rights supporters.

“I think that everyone believes that an inclusive ENDA is our top priority,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.

A federal hate crimes bill that covers crimes motivated by hatred of gays and transgender people is also a priority, along with a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s ban on openly gay service members.

[The bill will probably mandate life prison for anyone who supports traditional marriage.]

“Given the climate involving the need for people to serve in the Army, and the literal scandal over expelling gay translators,” Foreman said, “I think that also has a lot of force behind it.”

[You know, the best thing for society actually is to have homos take over the army. Because then the sh** will hit the fan in a major way and there will be tons of Foleys and Studds and Shanleys climbing higher and higher in the ranks - plus all the non-heterosexuals who have predatory attitudes towards adult men (and women), not only minors- and it will all blow up someday like the Catholic Church scandal. Then maybe society will decide it's time to take their heads out of the sand regarding pro-homo propaganda and face some real issues with how dysfunctional modern sexuality is.]

Some gay rights activists, like Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, praised the early focus on those issues.

“We’re accused of having a gay agenda,” he said, “but this is the time when we really need one.”

---

Accused of having a gay agenda??? Just because they've had nothing but a multi-million dollar corrupt one for decades?

The homo activist who does nothing but homo politics is complaining that he's been "accused" of having a homo political agenda... It's like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad complaining he's been ACCUSED of having a nuclear agenda.

"A nuclear agenda, of all things... Moi? nah nah. BOOM! There goes Israel..."

Jean Sellmeyer Smith
Crowley

Excuse No. 1: “I was victimized as a child by a clergyman.” So what?
A huge number of youngsters were. Some, like Foley, grow up and extend the hurtful behavior to a new generation. Others, thank, God, devote their lives to protecting kids.

Excuse No. 2: “I’m an alcoholic.” Come on, Foley! Of course alcoholism is a disease. I know hundreds of alcoholics, just average run-of-the-mill alcoholics, and they don’t use their illness as an excuse to ‘come on’ to youngsters — via the Internet or otherwise.

Excuse No. 3: “I never actually had physical contact with them,” How do we know? Judging from Foley’s e-mails, it appears the absence of ‘acting out’ wasn’t because he didn’t try.

Excuse No. 4: From Fo-ley’s lawyer: “Sixteen is the age of consent in Washing-ton.” If that’s so, it’s pitiful.

I’m sick and tired of kids being sent off to school to be murdered. And now, being sent off to Washington to witness democracy in action in the land of the free, the home of the brave — only to find the land of a longtime lawmaker who heads a committee to stop this stuff — while he’s doing it!

When do we ‘get it’ that something is dreadfully wrong?

---

This letter touches on an issue that the press has not dealt with. No person with an abuse history that has access to all the privileges in the world has a valid excuse for not seeking treatment to his diseased sexual predator mind. This is Foley's case. And his is a sexually diseased homosexual mind and character. (Because of possible dishonest pro-homo readers out there, we are forced to add: saying there are diseased homosexuals is equal to saying there are diseased heterosexuals - it does not mean that all homosexuals or all heterosexuals are mentally diseased - although our culture suggests sane people are in decline ;-) It is a statement to counter the lie that pro-homos try to assert that there are no mentally diseased homosexuals and that homosexuals are "all victims and good all the time, everywhere.")

First, seeking help is usually based on a conflation of privileges. There can be cases of people who are extremely dysfunctional, but who do not have any access to any help or treatment resources, starting with lacking the knowledge of who they should go for help and that they need to seek it. These people may be poor/lacking in resources, or isolated, or uneducated, or severely mentally ill (or any other combinations of such and other factors). This is clearly not the case of a well-informed, wealthy, well-connected politician with access to everything one could dream of. Foley is a predatory slime without a shred of character because he never sought reform or treatment. One has to add, on a bit of a tangent, that finding a therapist who is capable of recognizing a homosexual like Foley is dysfunctional and is harmful is getting harder and harder in today's culture, but they aren't that impossible to find either. And it is not like Foley even thought he should try. And that's where the crux of the problem lies.

For Foley, a pro-homo slime, the notion that he has a dysfunctional set of attitudes and behavior regarding his sexuality is out of the question, so why seek to change? Why even recognize that a lot stinks with his homosexuality? This everything-homosexual legitimizing attitude is the result of liberalism, the NAMBLA-ization of culture (nicely achieved through a dandy veneer of "gay rights") and the legimitization of pro-homosexuality, which legitimizes a lot of exploitative and abusive behavior in the name of freedom and normalcy for "gays." Such legitimation moves also include flatly denying that non-heterosexuals engage in exploitative and abusive behaviors. Our current "NAMBLA-called-nicely-gay" state of affairs is an expansion of a heterosexual sexually abusive culture that has always simmered beneath the surface, but which is also getting more and more "normalized" with each passing day.

The impossible has happened! Someone from ultra-liberal/ultra pro-homo Slate is promoting real personal responsibility in wrong-doing and criticizing slimy "damage control" cover-ups regarding Foley and other corrupt politico affairs. And at Volokh, which perhaps only gives the impression of being less extremist in its liberalism, the fanatical pro-homos (Dale Carpenter) were at work with a "it's all homophobia, bla bla" post - the kind of cheap pro-homo propaganda we would have expected to see at Slate.

Although I agree with how disgusting this "damage control" PR strategies have become (plus others), we also have not failed to notice that Slate only minds them when the guilty are Republicans or right-wingers. (Or a wacko like Gibson - don't know if a traditional political label applies to him).

Spin the Bottle
Mark Foley's 10-step rehab program.
By William Saletan


Bad news: You've been caught (a) taking bribes from Jack Abramoff, (b) telling a police officer that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," or (c) exchanging naked fantasies with teenage boys. What do you do? If you're Mel Gibson, Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), or former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), you blame alcohol. Here's their 10-step program for rehabilitating your career.

1. Take "full responsibility." This is crucial. Only by accepting blame in principle can you shift it in practice. After being caught in the Abramoff scandal, for example, Ney issued a statement that pledged "to accept responsibility for what I have done" and then segued to his "dependence on alcohol." Gibson's statement, released after his anti-Semitic rant during a drunk-driving arrest, opened with the excuse and then segued to responsibility: "After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong."

Foley's statement takes the Gibsonian approach. "Painfully, the events that led to my resignation have crystallized recognition of my longstanding significant alcohol and emotional difficulties," he begins in the third-person passive. After two more paragraphs on his "disease" and his "treatment for alcoholism," he vows to "accept full responsibility for the harm I have caused." In press conferences, Foley's spokesman, David Roth, smoothly blends the rhetoric of responsibility with the chemistry of excuses: "Based upon the experts that I have spoken to, the combination of alcohol [and] mental illness can result in inappropriate conduct, which Mark Foley has fully accepted responsibility for."

2. Confess that the disease is bigger than you. This is no time for arrogance. Only by expressing humility and weakness can you feign inability to control your behavior. Thus, Gibson puzzled over slurs that were "blurted out in a moment of insanity," seemingly against his will. Likewise, Roth portrays Foley as a casualty of a natural disaster: "The recent tragic events that led to Mark's recognition that he is ill and that his alcoholism and mental illness are beyond his control reached a crisis point on Friday."

3. Depict the drunken you as a stranger. According to the sober Gibson, the plastered Gibson "said things that I do not believe to be true." In a second statement, Gibson added with pained innocence, "I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display." Similarly, Roth suggests there are two Foleys: "The communications that he made while under the influence of alcohol … are not the product of the Mark Foley—the sober and healthy Mark Foley—but are the product of someone under the influence of alcohol and suffering from mental illness."

4. Call yourself an alcoholic. Foley adopts the label directly: "I am an alcoholic." This is vital, because when you're also a crook, anti-Semite, or pervert, "alcoholic" sounds so much nicer. Millions of people are alcoholic or love someone who's alcoholic. Embrace the label, and they'll embrace you. Roth adds a nifty twist to this maneuver, calling Foley "a closet drinker." Everyone knows Foley had a closet. The only question is what's in it. Booze is the least shocking answer he can hope to get away with.

5. Duck and recover. It's no fun explaining why you sold your vote for casino chips or asked an underage lacrosse player what he does in the nude. Your best move is to disappear into the nearest substance-abuse clinic, where you can "recover" until the media pack has moved on. That's what Ney did when reporters demanded to know whether he'd resign. "He is taking things one step at a time," Ney's lawyer told them. Roth brushes aside questions about Foley's fate the same way. "Those issues will be dealt with when Mark's treatment hopefully results in his recovery," he says. "He's in treatment" sounds so much better than "no comment." [btw - what happened to those headlines that Foley was spotted in Texas??? Some over-dosed on Foley-news fan just happened to see someone who looked like Foley? Or was he romping about in some Texan Republican villas?]

6. Ask for help. If you're the villain in the present drama, replace it with a new drama in which you're the victim. "I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery," said Gibson. "Over the years, I have worked to help others, but now I am the one that needs help," said Ney. Now Foley needs help, too. "The focus of our work," says Roth, "has been exclusively dedicated to getting Mark the help that he acknowledged that he needed and could not deal with on his own." [He forgot to mention: blame it all on the closet. As a nice touch, add the blame to those repressive anti-pro-homos who stand in the way of Foley and all the pages.]

7. Medicate promptly. No one will believe you if you promise to stop hating Jews, taking bribes, or flirting with boys tomorrow. Reform takes time. But recast your character problem as a substance problem and you can "treat" it right away. "I have begun an ongoing program of recovery," Gibson announced four days after his slurs became public. It worked: By the time he came up for sentencing, the judge gave him credit for having "'already engaged in an extensive amount of rehabilitation." Ney took the same approach, embracing "professional help" for his "dependency." Foley, moving even more quickly, has announced his "immediate treatment for alcoholism and related behavioral problems." The story of what you did may get worse, but the story of your "treatment" always gets better.

8. Take credit for fighting your addiction. While blaming your sins on factors beyond your control, don't hesitate to frame your flight to the clinic as an act of courage and free will. "I have battled the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life," Gibson declared. Foley, too, is a hero. "Mark voluntarily entered a substance abuse and mental health facility," says Roth. "This decision was Mark's … This was a life decision, not a tactical one made by others." [And to realize he left out the comparison to Studds - hasn't Saletan seen the hero headlines that came out at his death?]

9. Compartmentalize the problem. While using alcohol to explain away everything from golf junkets to selling commercial endorsements in the Congressional Record, never admit to drinking on the job. Remember, alcohol pervaded your life but not your schedule. Despite amorous instant messages in which Foley tells a young man "we are still voting" and "I better go vote," Roth insists Foley "was never under the influence of alcohol while he was a public servant." Instead, Foley drank only "alone" and "at night."

10. Add excuses as needed. Two days after declaring himself an alcoholic, Foley announced that as a boy, he had been molested by a clergyman. "Mark does not blame the trauma he sustained as a young adolescent for his totally inappropriate emails and IM's. He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct," said Roth. But the spokesman continued: "As is so often the case with victims of abuse, Mark advises that he kept his shame to himself for almost 40 years." Who needs a scapegoat when you've got a "trauma" that recasts you as the "victim"? The most powerful excuses are those you never call by that name.

---

p.s. there is a follow-up commentary: Mark Foley's abuser blames the bottle, too.

Over at Volokh, a discussion sparked by an extreme pro-homo post on the Foley scandal, yielded some very good posts critically dismantling the "homophobia" term and its "ad hominem" uses. Tom 952 starts with a good summary, that I had also blogged about before.

Tom952 wrote:

"Homophobic" is a term loaded with implications of irrationality. It makes an analogy between critics of homosexuals (for any reason) and other irrational phobias. The term is used to dismiss anyone critical of homosexuals or pro-homosexual agendas, and to avoid serious inquiry and debate of the issues surrounding homosexuality. If those opposed to expanded homosexual rights are irrational, that can be demonstrated by facts and reason during honest debate. Those who deny that any problems exist, demonized the opposition, and otherwise avoid debate tacitly admit a lack of facts to support their position.

Then one bright poster (whit) continues against a bunch of dishonest pro-homos (including the tripe of Elais - whose life is devoted to covering up and lying about every single case of abuse and exploitation perpetrated by non-heterosexuals. Other posts where Elais gets a mention .

---

whit wrote:

But I also think it is absurd and PURE politics steeped in penny psychology to attribute "phobia" (a specific psychological diagnosis - see: DSM etc.) to a person because they believe an act (homosexual) is morally wrong, medically dangerous (I know more than one atheist who is opposed to homosexual sex on pure biological grounds), socially unacceptable, etc.

It is the kind of orwellian thought-control that we just accept. I am sure that SOME people who believe homosexual sex is morally wrong, or who believe that gay marriage is bad policy (heck, the democratic party has been officially against gay marriage and for civil unions for some time), etc. is PHOBIC. It eliminates the possibility of rational discussion by characterizing a policy stance, or moral stance as merely a result of mental disorder... shades of Michael Savage... how ironic.

And yes, the analogy to racist is apt. I recall that when advocates of initiatives to ban racial preferences in California were heckled by crowds of "privileged white college students" for their PRO-equality position, that many students claimed that being against racial preferences was the result of "racism." The idea of a rich white UCLA student from Beverly Hills accusing Ward Connerly (a black man who has experienced plenty of racism firsthand) of being a 'racist' because, as a matter of policy, he finds racial preferences to be, well... racist, is absurd.

Being against homosexual acts, homosexual marriage, etc. (and again, *I* do not take these positions) does not mean one is PHOBIC. One *may* be phobic, in the same way that some people who are very against gun rights are in fact "hoplophobic", but merely being for a policy of strict gun control does not EQUAL being "hoplophobic".

As for the inherent thing ... liberals TEND to want to think ALL human behavioral traits are purely "socially constructed" (see: gender for example, and of course with some exceptions) whereas conservatives tend to think most behavioral things are choices - good or bad.

Homosexuality turns this tendency on its head with pro-gay advocates jumping on even the flimsiest of data to proclaim it is 100% NOT a choice, and conservatives also reversing roles to try to find any study that shows people can 'change'.

Like most aspects of human behavior and desire, it is partly genetic (no choice) and partly environment/choice.

But neither side will broach any ground... kind of like evolutionists vs. ID people.

(hoplophobia - n. - an irrational and morbid fear of guns, a term coined
by Jeff Cooper, from Greek "hoplites," weapon. Symptoms may include
discomfort, disorientation, rapid pulse, sweating, faintness and more,
at the mere sight or even thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and
should never be involved in setting gun policies, though many are hard
at work in the rights-denial movement, and are arguably the greatest
threat in the debate. Point out hoplophobic behavior when you see it, it
is dangerous, and sufferers deserve pity. A hoplophobe (HOP-li-fobe) can
often be cured by training, or by a day at the range.)

---

Marcus replied to Whit above:

I think at this point, the word "homophobic" has been redefined to include any bigotry against gays, similar to "Islamophobia."

Certainly you can object to the redefinition, and I'd probably also prefer a clearer word, but I'm not sure you it's a misuse at this point either.

---

whit wrote:
"I think at this point, the word "homophobic" has been redefined to include any bigotry against gays, similar to "Islamophobia.""

Marcus, again there is a problem with redefining words and making stuff up to suit an agenda.

First of all, it is arguable (at best) that being against gay marriage, as a matter of policy, is "bigotry" against gays, any more than being against polygamy (polyandry or polygyny for that matter) is "bigotry".

I detest when people (and I am sorry but it is usually the left) tries to hijack the language to eliminate rational debate.

They do that on campuses by defining all ideas they disagree with as "hate speech".

I know far too many people who are against gay marriage, as a matter of policy, and who are the LEAST bigoted people I have ever met in my life, to accept such rhetoric lying down (no entendre intended).

Kovarsky nails the ad hominem and orwellian doublespeak (unintentionally) to a "t".

There are people who believe that being against gay marriage makes one a "homophobe", which essentially means that the policy disagreement CANNOT be based on reason, but is based on psychological disorder.

It is SO typical of the thought police to label people they disagree with as evil (their favorite) or suffering from ignorance (see: elitism).

Another great ploy is that they are mentally ill. It's a phobia.

FWIW, and I have seen articles like this many years ago in the GAY PRESS (the advocate comes to mind), there are GAY MEN (and women) who are (and were) against Gay Marriage. Are they self-phobic homophobes?

Many gays have historically seen marriage as a square and 'straight institution' that they want(ed) no part of.

The irony is so thick I could cut it with a ladle. Are they "homophobes?"

"marriage-phobes" (heck, many bachelors arguably suffer from this)

"heterophobes?"

spare me

As for randy, I have not heard the boy scouts "rant against gays".

The boy scouts find homosexuality to be inconsistent with THEIR membership criteria, and I see nothing wrong with this. They aren't ranting agaisnt gays, and they aren't trying to eliminate gay rights. Nobody has a 'right' to be a boy scout. I guess you are boyscoutaphobic (rolls eyes)

---

Kovarsky replied to whit:

your time disputing the the term's etymology and descriptive accuracy might be better spent refuting the attributes that Dale painstakingly describes. Whether the term homophobic applies or not is largely besides the point; the point is that the reaction is largely heavy-handed, sexually self-congratulatory, and hateful. so everyone should focus on whether those attributes apply without going william safire every time they hear the term "homophobic."

---

whit:

"largely heavy-handed, sexually self-congratulatory, and hateful"

again, the meme. It is often not "hateful".

Ideologues constantly see hate where none exists. Again, I know plenty of people steadfastly opposed to legalization of gay marriage. With NO hate whatsoever, period.

But again, you cannot accept that people can have policy disagreements without ascribing evil motives, feelings, intentions, etc. That is not rational discussion.

Elais: "If they aren't bigoted, why do they oppose gay marriage? There has to be bigotry SOMEWHERE to deny people marriage rights because of their sexual orientation?"

Simply put... false.

This begs more questions than I can count. It assumes that opposing gay marriage, as a policy issue = bigotry against gays. I see this as no more valid than opposing polygamous marriage as a policy issue = bigotry against polygamy.

Many see gay marriage as oxymoronic. If it is not marriage in the first place, how can marriage rights be 'extended' to gays, when the very idea is nonsensical.

Contrary to laws against (for example) interracial marriage (which were invented out of racial seperatism and/or bigotry), gay marriage has never existed in the history of mankind. It is a new INVENTION. The idea that some believe that this invention is not a good policy decision does not = bigotry.

Maybe I am one of those people who can see other points of view (that I often disagree with) without ascribing evil motives, hatred, bigotry, etc. to those that hold them.

Y'know, I used to be pro-life. I am now pro-choice. it was reasoned discussion that changed my mind. I was never "anti-woman" when I was pro-life. I was never bigoted. I thought it was bad policy. Now, i disagree.

Similarly, all you are doing is name calling. I realize that it is inconceivalbe to you, that non-bigoted, loving, intelligent, freedom loving individuals can be against gay marriage, but like it or not - it's true.

Including, as a I mentioned - many gays - who have been against gay marriage. Are they "bigoted?"

---

whit wrote:

"logicnazi: Also there is nothing at all wrong with the word homophobia. Nor has it been redefined. It means something like an irrational hatred/fear/prejudice against homosexuals. Everyone who uses the word homophobia means exactly this. "

False. They do not mean exactly this, cause they haven't proven (facts not in evidence) that somebody who is against gay marriage as a policy change has an "irrational hatred/fear/prejudice against homosexuals"

in many cases, they have no hatred, fear, or prejudice against homosexuals at all, let alone an irrational one. And of course, the IRRATIONAL issue is the point. It begs the question. It says, if you don't agree with ME, you are irrational.

Is somebody against POLYGAMY, a "polygamophobe?"

---

whit wrote:
"Randy R:Yes, there are even gay men who oppose gay marriage for personal reasons"

riggggght. Because, if they disagree with you about POLICY, it is because of "personal reasons".

It's the same meme. Over and over. You need to deal with the fact that some people (even some gay people) think that gay marriage is BAD POLICY. And that this is not necessarily at all related to any phobia, hatred, etc. but to an honest disagreement about what policies are best.


"Randy R: As for the term homophobia, it's true that it's the fear of gays. But it's also the hatred of gays as well."

Rubbish. I repeat. I know plenty who are against gay marriage who have exactly ZERO hatred of gays.

You cannot differentiate policy from your emotional arguments. Yup, they disagree with me, it must be gay hatred.

utter rubbish

"Randy R: We hate the things that we fear, and the two are often intertwined to such a degree as to be impossible to separate. Once people realize there is nothing to fear from gay people, any more than this is anything to fear from Jews, blacks, Quakers, or Republicans, then the hatred vanishes, and they are ready to give us our rights. They won't give an inch,though, so long as they have any sort of fear, however irrational or unsubstantiated."

again, utter rubbish. In my humble opinion. You don't understand that it is entirely possible (and quite common) for people who know JUST AS MUCH ABOUT GAYS as you do, and in some cases - who ARE gay - to be against gay marriage.

But you will not engage in discussion. You just want to demonize and assume that it is fear and hatred.

That is irrational. But I won't go as far as calling it hateful. (rolls eyes)

Isn't it disgusting to wake up to headlines of «Gerry Studds - courageous gay congressman » dies? At least he died. Not by his own doing, unfortunately, because his courage lies in preying on underage kids half his own age, in order to exploit them for sex. And when he gets a slap on the wrist for it from his equally morally corrupt Congress leaders, he turns his back on them in a full performance theater act. He does not apologize, he does not resign. At the time, Studds called the relationship with the teenage page, which included a trip to Europe, "a very serious error in judgment." (This is liberal-speak for « mistakes were made, pass out the slap on the wrist, and send in the next page). Then Studds gets re-elected. So this is what passes for courage nowadays: a NAMBLA congressman.

This is why I think the headlines would have been more appropriate if they had read, «Studds- First Open NAMBLA Congressman Dead at 69 – after being re-elected several times. »

Let's compare Studds' position with what Nambla advocates:

- legal sexual consent age under 18 – CHECK!
- man/boy love - CHECK!
- NAMBLA rejects the widely held view that sex between adults and minors is always harmful, arguing that "the outcomes of personal experiences between adults and younger people primarily depend upon whether their relationships were consensual. « - CHECK!

What we are now witnessing with the likes of Studds and Foleys is the Nambla-ization of morality and sexuality (with loads of hypocrisy heaped onto the process). Big speeches are made about how horrible the Self-Outed-as-Pederasts folks at NAMBLA are, while homos like Studds and Foley get a big coddling. Apparently many people are not willing to notice they are all displaying the very same sexually exploitative NAMBLA attitudes and behaviors.

At least with Studds dying, we have been spared having him make a speech about how horrible NAMBLA is. However Foley, having been co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, has probably made such a comment somewhere along the line. Pro-homo activist associations display the same PR hypocrisy. Take the case of International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA): ILGA had passed a resolution in 1985 which stated that "young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect." In a ridiculous PR show, they then expelled NAMBLA, but kept their resolution intact. Evidently the press wasn't interested in reporting the blatant contradiction.

In 1994 the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD."

So why hasn't GLAAD made the same statement towards ILGA? Or why don't they call Studds a pederast? Or Foley a homo slime?

Because they can always do the « pretend you're not going along with Nambla » dog-and-pony show, while supporting people who act accordingly in a more closeted way. And from the public reaction in the Studds case, we can see that the GLAAD hypocrisy works quite well from a political agenda perspective. Call it "gay" instead of NAMBLA and the pro-homos fall over themselves to cheer about the "progress in homosexual freedom" - which is NAMBLA-speak for sexual exploitation of minors.

---

answers.com has an excellet recap of NAMBLA

Studds, who had been living quietly out of the limelight in recent years, raised eyebrows after leaving Congress when he accepted a job as executive vice president of Massachusetts Heavy Industries Inc., a firm planning to return shipbuilding to Fore River shipyard in Quincy.

While in Congress, Studds was instrumental in crafting a shipyard revitalization bill that became the source of loan guarantees for Heavy Industries owner Sotirios Emmanouil.

Heavy Industries later defaulted on about $80 million in government-backed loans in a failed effort to re-open the shipyard.

State Auditor Joseph DeNucci reported in 2003 that Studds billed the embattled New Bedford Oceanarium about $195,000 in consulting fees during a two-year period without documenting how much time he spent on the project, his hourly compensation rate or what services he provided.

DeNucci’s audit of the proposed $67 million aquarium criticized officials for no-bid contracts and inadequate controls over consultant contracts.

---

Along with all the "homo pioneer" carnival of compliments, plus the hero adulation from other liberals, Sen. Edward Kennedy was among those who recently praised Studds’ leadership on issues involving the fishing industry and protection of ocean resources. For unimaginable reasons, he failed to mention the specific Oceanarium controversy.

p.s. Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know where the page that had the sexual relationship with Studds is now in life.

My view is it needs to start local or maybe local and state -- and then after consolidating on these levels, move towards the federal level (while continuing the lobbying):

---

It Is Time For Christians To Leave The Republican Party
posted October 17, 2006

"Jesus wasn’t riding an elephant into town"

There would probably be more believers if more Christians thought this way. I am grateful for the many GOP leaders have done to fight for Christian values in America. Although fine Americans such as Billy Graham,Dr. D. James Kennedy Tony Evans, Joel Osteen, Don Wildmon, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, T.D. Jakes, James Dobson, Franklin Graham, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Ron Parsaly, Ron Phillips and others have fought the fight as well for the pro-family movement. We all have scars to prove it.

But it is time to build an ark. It is time to leave the Republican Party.




I know that seems like a radical move. But it has become increasingly apparent that the core values of the Republican Party are not Tennessean or Christian values. The Mark Foley Branch of the Log Cabin Republicans has seen to that.

The Republican Party has had success convincing Christians that their party actually is more moral and more sincerely religious than the Democrats. However, the events of the last year have begun to unravel that carefully constructed image. It is time all Christians to ask ourselves if it is possible for God to bless a polluted party.

Make no mistake, the Republican Party is polluted. I have found that out locally here in Bradley County. It's obvious to me that both the Republicans and the leaders of the Religious Right are contemptuous of rank and file conservative Christians, not each other. By forming a new party we cast a new direction united and committed to do the work together. I fear the Mark Foley scandal is only a small part of the problem.

So now is the time to form our own party. It is exactly what this country needs at a time like this, controlling spending, undoing and preventing liberal damage, and presenting a noble and honest agenda. While we still have the influence to do it we must take action. Remember how quickly people got behind Ross Perot? Can’t our Christian leaders like a Ron Phillips do the same? We have the resources and the network. It is time to stop wasting them on Republicanism, even at the local level.

There's a vacuum to be filled in the evangelical leadership by preachers and leaders who eschew worldly, political power for its own sake. The world has gotten smaller. The power of the internet has changed the way Americans communicate. With one click of a mouse, millions can be alerted to truth. A network of churches and ministries already exists. We can override the lunacy of television ads, without spending a dime.

If we focus now on 2008, here is how we can do it:

· Begin now to build the network of partnerships of those who espouse Christian values. Much of it is already in place.

· Draft a quality Christian leader as the 2008 presidential candidate. One that has proven his mettle. We begin working for this election now. Work to get them on the ballot in all fifty states. Stay out of the Republican primary. Build a war-chest for the general election.

· Begin a training program for future candidates in Constitutional government as it relates to God-ordained freedoms. Train up men who will not compromise for personal gain. Courageous men who stand in the face of the anti-god establishment. Men who will restore Constitutional government. Men in the tradition of Madison and Washington. In two years we will have a group of God-fearing men to run in local races.

· Hire experts to create PAC’s that will support the candidates giving opportunities for Christians to donate to Godly candidates, rather than compromised Republicans. Thumb your nose at the IRS. Would Jesus be silent on the great moral issues of the day because he was afraid of losing His tax-exempt status?

· Give no money to Republican or Democratic candidates - only those who join the new party.

· Offer current, God-fearing officials an alternative to status quo politics, and offer an alternative party for them to join.

Things are not looking good for Republicans. It is time to abandon ship, to build an ark, to raise the standard. Republicanism is making Christianity look bad. The Republican leadership mocks us and throws crumbs from the table during election years.

America needs bold new leadership. Christians still have the influence to pull it off. But we must be willing to give up our ceremonial seat at the Republican table? With leadership comes responsibility and the Lord will hold us all accountable for the compromising of His standards.

The detractors will tell us a third-party can’t win, that we will only divide the vote, that Hillary will be president. She might well be. I say God will do something great if we honor His name and His ways. Matthew 19:6 "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

So, America, who will you choose to believe?

Greg Cain
GCAIN14@aol.com

Homofascist lawmakers demand firing of commentator who questioned immoral "co-parenting" scheme

by Cinnamon Stilwell (Excerpt) Read more at cinnamonstillwell.blogspot.com ...

Well, it looks like the San Francisco Thought Police is up to its old tricks again.

Demonstrating the sort of Stalinist tendencies for which the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has become infamous, supervisors Tom Ammiano, Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly and Ross Mirkarimi are demanding the resignation of KGO talk show host Pete Wilson (pictured). Assemblyman Mark Leno has chimed in for good measure.

It seems Pete Wilson committed the cardinal sin for San Francisco. He dared to question the local liberal "gay" (LGBTQWERSIPOKJ...) community.

Wilson was critical of the platonic co-parenting (as it's known around here) of "gay" supervisor Bevan Dufty and his "lesbian" friend Rebecca Goldfader, who recently gave birth to their baby. The two are planning to move into the same building in November and raise the child together. Wilson had the audacity to refer to the coupling of sorts as "non-loving" and the baby as an "experiment," among other things.

But the truth is, both of these observations are accurate. Dufty and Goldfader do not in fact have any romantic attachment to each other, for obvious reasons. And such nontraditional "families" are experimental. We won't really know the outcome until these children grow up.

But just the fact that Wilson was critical in any way, shape or form was enough to put him on the chopping block. Supervisor Dufty, to his credit, has not joined in the call for Wilson's head. But his colleagues are now demanding not only Wilson's resignation, but also an on-air apology and a KGO listener and advertiser boycott.

Thus far, KGO has stood by Wilson, but it remains to be seen how owner ABC7 will react. Board president Aaron Supervisor warned ominously that "it is...our job to tell you and the public when your industry makes a mistake and abuses your power."

Abusing power by voicing an opinion?

All of this is starting to sound eerily familiar.

And a similarly well-written criticism by Debra J. Saunders

Intolerance, a San Francisco treat

SAN FRANCISCANS may think of their town as a haven for tolerance, but once again, S.F. supervisors are showing the rest of America how intolerant The Special City can be. Forget a flower in your hair. If you come to San Francisco, be sure to wear a muzzle on your brain.

Criticize a supervisor, and some supes will do their utmost to get you fired.

Last week, KGO radio talk-show host Pete Wilson made some comments about a child born to Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who is gay, and Rebecca Goldfader, who is a lesbian. As Wilson put it, a baby is "not an experiment. It is not an opportunity to see how far you can carry your views on parenting, alternative lifestyles or diversity in family structures."

And: "Look around you, folks. You think the high divorce rate in this country has been, generally speaking, good for kids? So, why not start out divorced? See if that'll work." (While I am sure Dufty's daughter is a beautiful child, I, too, wonder if this Instant Family will last.)

Wilson supports same-sex marriage and gay parenting. Doesn't matter. Last week, S.F. Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin held a press conference at which they called Wilson "homophobic" and demanded that he resign his job.

Yes, San Francisco is very tolerant -- unless you hold the wrong opinion. Then the supes will try to get you fired.

Dufty, to his credit, wrote in an e-mail to Wilson that read I do not want you to "resign or lose your position over this incident." Wilson marveled Monday that Dufty "showed more class than anyone else in this."

Be it noted, Wilson has apologized -- not for his misgivings about parenting and children -- but for using "inappropriate" and overly personal language. Still, the uproar may not be over, as Wilson also anchors ABC7 TV news.


[...]

Deliberately ignoring Wilson's point, Ammiano accused the talk-show host of trying to "dehumanize a week-old baby." He declared that Wilson's "manhood is threatened." Noting that he would never criticize Wilson's offspring, Ammiano added, "I would never ask how much grunting and sweating there was -- and God knows it probably it didn't last very long -- at that kid's conception."

Feel the love?

[...]

Leno, who like Ammiano is gay, told me, "I'm not going to criticize those supervisors." As he sees it, S.F. and gays are "the aggrieved party. We're the ones who are getting beaten up." Ammiano accused Wilson of "abuse of privilege," Peskin cited "abuses" of power.

Except in this case, gays and S.F. supes are in power -- and they're trying to get a man fired for expressing views they don't like. They clearly don't appreciate the beauty of free speech: When you don't like what someone says, you talk back. You don't silence dissenters, unless you are afraid of what they say.

If you want the world to understand who you are, you show understanding for others.

If Ammiano wanted to send a message -- that when the gay lobby has power, straight Americans will enjoy less freedom -- he could not have done a better job.

Which is why the homos and pro-homos "investigating" the Foley predatory scandal cannot be trusted to be ethical or effective.

I am engaged in an educational activity with girls in the 10-12 year old bracket. And as I looked at the faces of each of these girls in my group last week, I couldn't stop thinking, "Saying that these children are at all ready to consent to sex with an ADULT is one of the most monstrous things that could ever happen in a society."

Clear, stark, unambiguous promotion of child sexual abuse.

But it's exactly what liberal pro-homos did (or are doing) in the Netherlands, because they are so progressive. At least according to how society measures progress nowadays. Foley is progress, Studds is progress, Clinton is progress. Towards what they are progressing, selfish, irresponsible liberals never ask.

Nice recap of the issue (already blogged about before):

The Republican Party is a big tent party with regard to social policy. Their voters are not. Republican voters are anti-abortion, anti-homosexual rights, and anti-obscenity. It is not the libertarians who will stay home for the upcoming midterm election - it is the religious values voters.

Read whole article...

How I wish it were true. But I am not that optimistic. Republican election meisters will be pumping their multi-billion dollar campaign machine to convince the value voters to forgive and forget in at most a week's time. And I think they will be mostly successful.

:-P

Letter to the Editor - Offenders often get blind eye
10/12/2006

Just a comment about Thursday's editorial "Blind Eye."


The writer does not understand the legal problems the superintendent of the pretend school district would be subject to if he started an investigation of a gay teacher or gay person without iron-clad proof of sexual activity.

If the superintendent would start an investigation of a gay with e-mails similar to those sent by Foley (before the text messages), the ACLU would bring suit immediately against the superintendent, and the district would pay millions.

The e-mails did not demonstrate any real indication of being of a sexual nature. Therefore, any questions or suggestions using these e-mails that a gay communicating with a student was improper would be considered harassment of a gay.

By law, the superintendent must have a blind eye until he has proof of a crime. That isn't the way it should be, but that's the law.

Another point of interest: When school systems are faced with legal problems where the ACLU may become involved, they will generally use their blind eyes because school boards do not have the financial resources to fight the ACLU.

Finally, let's face reality. In every school system there are at least five to 15 underage girls getting pregnant every year, and many of them impregnated by men over the age of 17. The superintendent uses his blind eye many times each year to these crimes, as does our communities and this newspaper.

It's easy to write the words, but will the editorial board demand the father and his age of each child that becomes pregnant in Beaver County? Or, will it use a blind eye and permit these crimes to occur? I know the answer, and it isn't pretty.

Dan Reeping

Sewickley

Media Bias: Gerry Studds and Mark Foley edition
Sunday October 15 2006 @ 1:40 pm by Optimistic Patriot

If Mark Foley died today, would the press describe him as a “gay pioneer”? But that’s how the Washington Post titled 12 term Massachusetts Democrat Gerry Studds’s obituary. You may recall Mr. Studds as the censured Congressman who got a 17 year old page drunk before having intercourse with him. The Post fails to mention those details although they put Mr. Studds’s disclaimer that it was just his personal life in there. It just goes to show that being a Democrat means never having to say you’re sorry.

BY EDWARD WASSERMAN- professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University.

Mark Foley, the disgraced former South Florida congressman, is new to the national media, but he has been a perplexing figure for local media for more than a decade. With his career apparently over, the Foley storyline has mutated into an election-eve argument over how congressional leaders responded to warnings he was lusting after teenage pages. But the media's performance is being re-examined too, and I worry that the lessons being drawn are the wrong ones.

Foley was already old news in June 2003 when I took part in a panel in Fort Lauderdale sponsored by the gay and lesbian journalists group on the ethics of outing closeted officials. Foley was the featured topic.

He had been outed in 1994 by the Advocate, a local gay newspaper angered by his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which let states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally elsewhere. In '03, when this panel convened, he had dramatically modified his gay rights positions and was running for the Senate, and some of the region's bolder news organizations -- among them New Times and the Daily Business Review -- had attributed his hypocritical zigzags to his being gay.

But the metro dailies and TV stations had not. ''I'm not going to be dragged into the gutter by these rumor mongers,'' was as much as their audiences learned.

Hypocrisy seemed to me then an insufficient reason to expose the intimate realities of a public official's private life. It still does. But in fact, the situation was well beyond mere hypocrisy, as we'll see.

The media's reluctance to touch Foley's homosexuality is now being offered up to explain the failure of news organizations including The St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald and Harper's magazine to report tips they received over the past year about his amorous pursuits.

On the online Huffington Post, Eric Boehlert writes: ''Had The Herald not dismissed his homosexuality as irrelevant, it would have been more likely to read the alleged e-mail exchange as the sexual overture it apparently was.'' Bob Norman of Broward/Palm Beach New Times, who outed Foley in '03, argues, ``It made the story that much more difficult to tell.''

That argument seems weak. It suggests that evidence of sexual predation and abuse of office would have been more actionable editorially if Foley had already been publicly identified as gay. But why? Why wouldn't journalists have been more reluctant to move on the story if Foley had been openly gay? Besides, if Foley was propositioning teenage boys, what difference would it make if journalists had assumed he was happily married, with 2.2 children and a matching golden retriever?

A missed opportunity

My sense is that the newsroom failure to chase down the pages tip stands on its own as an editorial mistake, perhaps born of a disinclination to pursue a sordid, long-shot story about an out-of-town legislator. The blown opportunity is disheartening to those of us who fret over journalism's loss of nerve, but it has no clear relation to the earlier diffidence shown to Foley's homosexuality.

But what about that diffidence -- should Foley have been outed?

If so, the argument has to rest on more than a visceral sense that nobody can be both gay and a conservative Republican. Why not? We all decide on our political allegiances based on a near fit, not a perfect fit. A gay man may well decide that the GOP, even with its recurring homophobia, still is more broadly to his liking than the alternative.

But the Foley problem was different, as I've been slow to recognize. Here, the issue wasn't that his public performance wasn't consistent with his private life. It's that for years, his public performance made no sense unless you knew about what was happening behind the scenes. After his infuriating 1994 vote he dramatically softened his position on gay rights to deter further efforts to out him. In turn, he sought out off-the-wall issues -- clamoring, for instance, for a state crackdown on a central Florida nudist colony -- to appease his family values base. It's almost certain he pulled the plug on his Senate run because his gayness would come up.

As Boehlert correctly writes, ''Foley's sexuality had become the central issue in his career.'' And yet it was kept not secret, but in the shadows, known to those in the know, hidden from the main body of his constituents.

This wasn't a matter of deferring to a legitimate area of privacy. Foley's public actions were unintelligible unless you knew this backstory. And in failing to tell it, the media failed the public, and endorsed a principle of timidity that's sure to fail the public in the future as well.

---

In other words, Republican libertarians, who traditionally hate to face that "the personal is political," have the biggest scandal of the 2006 elections due to exactly that. Democrats, who hate to face the falsity of their pro-homosexuality mantra that "homosexuals are all victims who never engage in sexually harmful and/or criminal behavior" are having to face one more homo that does exactly that. The media- who is used to blaming other people for not protecting children and for engaging in all kinds of cover-ups - is being shown to have been completely collusive with Foley's behavior, whether to protect the Republican party (for the conservative media) or the homosexual agenda (for the liberal media).

Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated:10/14/2006 12:03:26 PM MDT

In Rep. Chris Cannon's own words, precocious teenagers and their parents are responsible for U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's folly into sexual predation. The GOP's response, in general, was that the sexual predator didn't do anything wrong, at least until he was caught.

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of sexual predators currently in residence at the Utah State Prison would agree with Cannon's assessment. In fact, some of them were actually lured into their current predicament by "precocious cops" posing as teenagers.

So, with election looming, the questions for Utah County and the rest of Utah's 3rd Congressional District are:
1) Are you going to vote for the man who has the unqualified support of child molesters everywhere and
2) If the voters do return the congressman to Washington, what does that say about the state of family values in Utah?


Karen L. Nilsen
Layton

AP’s Extraordinary Double Standard Regarding Mark Foley and Gerry Studds

Posted by Noel Sheppard on October 15, 2006 - 13:23.

Since the Mark Foley page story first broke, there have been many articles discussing the double standard in which Republican and Democrat sex scandals are handled by Congress and the media. No finer example of such hypocrisy has been demonstrated than by the Associated Press on Saturday, October 14, which had nothing but high praise for the now deceased former Rep. Gerry Studds while it continued to heap scorn on Foley.

More...

---

Buckeye_Paul01 Says:

We have lost an american icon, a pioneer, and a man who gave courage to the gay community to do stand up and be proud. He was a steward of the oceans, a guiding light.......yadda yadda yadda.

On the other hand, Foley's actions(the liberals claim) should bring an end to the GOP majority this november.

:rolls eyes:

by Scott Ott

(2006-10-04) — The attorney for disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley today offered more biographical background about his client who allegedly used his elected position to prey on high school boys sexually.

Previously, attorney and longtime friend David Roth had confessed that Mr. Foley is a mentally-ill alcoholic who was molested by clergy in his youth, and yet takes full responsibity for the unspecified harm he has caused to others.

This morning, Mr. Roth said that Mr. Foley had been exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke, and high levels of partially-hydrogenated soybean oil during his childhood.

More....

Great reader responses!

Sonora (Tuolumne County)

On Monday, Oct. 30 -- leaving a whole week for media frenzy -- Osama will be captured and helicoptered to a waiting aircraft carrier, where he will be accosted by President Bush wearing his flight suit, a "Mission Accomplished Two" banner hanging in the background.

Steven Travers, San Anselmo

We already saw it. It was the Democrats, sitting on so-called child endangerment for months in order to gain politically. They hope people like me did not recognize this fact. Unfortunately, people like me recognize this fact.

Michael Franzblau, San Rafael

I think that the chance of an October surprise is real. Karl Rove is busy looking through atlases to find a country we can invade and conquer in one day, as happened in Grenada.

Ted Mavrakos, Concord

The Foley thing was something. I hope the Republicans can find something on Hillary Clinton; I'm sure there is more than enough to get around. But, as was the case with Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, even if something is found, a left-based media will bury it on Page 7 of the want ads.

Republican damage control failing - (excerpt below)
By Gene Lyons

But back to Reynolds. After warning Speaker Hastert (or not) about the Florida congressman's unseemly interest in adolescent lads, what did the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee do next? Did he notify the police or the FBI? Did he even contact the feckless sleuths on the House Ethics Committee? Reynolds did none of those things. Instead, according to conservative columnist Bob Novak, he talked Foley out of retiring from Congress.

Then Reynolds accepted a $100,000 contribution from Foley to the NRCC.

Can you say "hush money?" I knew you could.

This is a fun and intriguing blog to look at and think about.

Today's most popular goals

1. stop procrastinating 11736 people, 26 people today
2. lose weight 14694 people, 22 people today
3. Get a tattoo 7741 people, 21 people today
4. drink more water 7367 people, 19 people today
5. Kiss in the rain 6423 people, 19 people today
6. Fall in love 9869 people, 18 people today
7. get married 7509 people, 18 people today
8. write a book 10043 people, 16 people today
9. see the northern lights 6634 people, 16 people today
10. be happy 8830 people, 13 people today
→ See more

When you see that "get a tatto" is the number 3 priority, you see in just what a mess the world now stands at. All in all, all very "me, me, me - 24/7" type goals. Not that there is anything unhealthily egotistical about falling in love or getting married, but still, it's not your community/generosity type goals that appear.

All-Time Most Popular Goals

1. lose weight 14693 people
2. stop procrastinating 11736 people
3. write a book 10043 people
4. Fall in love 9869 people
5. be happy 8829 people
6. Get a tattoo 7741 people
7. get married 7509 people
8. drink more water 7367 people
9. go on a road trip with no predetermined destination 7330 people
10. travel the world 6907 people

---

I just want to have a little bit of luck, that is all I need, just a little bitty bit of luck and I am all set.

Excellent article (Americans for Truth/Accuracy in Media) summing up some key points regarding the velvet mafia problem in the Republican party - points which were publicly exposed and put into the media spotlight only thanks to the Foley scandal. And who could have seen this coming? What went around surreptitiously, has come around to explode in their faces. If the people responsible for Foley, the cover-up, the velvet mafia infiltration don't get to go back to business as usual as Gerry Studds did, then it will be like Xmas in October.

By Cliff Kincaid

WASHINGTON, D.C.–The complex nature of the “dirty trick” against the Republicans over the Mark Foley scandal is beginning to emerge. It doesn’t involve a George Soros-funded group or emails that had been in the possession of the media or shopped around by Democratic operatives. Instead, the GOP has played a trick on itself. The party brought so-called gay Republicans into positions of power in Congress only to realize that the confidential information they held about a secret gay network was political dynamite that could backfire.

At this point in the scandal, the issue is not whether there was such a network, but how big it is. CBS Evening News correspondent Gloria Borger reported the emerging belief that “a group of high-level gay Republican staffers were protecting” Foley. A New York Times story by Mark Leibovich confirmed that gay Republicans have occupied “crucial staff positions” in Congress and “have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers.”

The mystery man at the center of the scandal, Jeff Trandahl, is supposed to be a “lifelong Republican” who is gay. But Trandahl, who supervised the congressional page program as House clerk and knew about the controversial Foley emails many years ago, has a strange way of showing his Republicanism. A search of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records over the last six years shows no financial contributions to the Republican Party or Republican candidates. Instead, Trandahl in 2000 gave $1,200 to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which gives over 80 percent of its political campaign money to Democrats.

Trandahl is so much of a Republican that he joined the board of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, another gay political action committee that commits most of its funds to electing Democrats. Its latest list of “winning candidates” is all Democrats, except for Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, who admits not voting for President Bush in 2004.

If you are getting the idea that gay Republicans may be closeted Democrats, then you are beginning to understand how the Mark Foley scandal could have been a Democratic Party dirty trick.

In response to the scandal, a representative of the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual activist group, has been on cable channels like CNN and MSNBC expressing the fear that the Foley scandal will be used to root out homosexual influence in the Republican Party. But the Log Cabin Republicans are so Republican that its board voted 22-2 against endorsing President Bush in 2004 because of his stand against homosexual “marriage.”

More...

[...] a law is only as good as its use. And local and federal authorities acknowledge that few offenders have been prosecuted under both the state and federal law here.

"I cannot recall that we have gone after anyone solely on the online-enticement law in this jurisdiction,'' said Paul McCabe, an FBI agent and spokesman for the local FBI office, which covers Minnesota and the Dakotas. McCabe added that federal authorities usually go after large-scale online predator cases.

Local authorities also were hard pressed to come up with examples of enticement-only prosecution cases.

Cops have plenty of territory to cover. About 25 million U.S. kids from 10 to 17 years old regularly use the Internet, the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire concluded after analyzing census data. The center surveyed 1,500 youths last year, with 13 percent reporting they received a sexual solicitation and 34 percent saying they had unwanted exposure to sexual material.

In recent years, a handful of online predatory cases involved undercover stings, in which an adult seeking sex with a minor actually met the mark, only to discover it was a cop.

"These cases, other than those in which a meeting actually takes place, are very difficult to prove because sometimes the language can be ambiguous,'' says J. Anthony Torres, a criminal defense lawyer. "But there are occasions where it's clear that the person is 'grooming' the minor in the conversations with the intent of engaging in sex at a future date.''

Brook Schaub, a retired St. Paul cop and former member of the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children task force, notes that online enticement statutes can be used as a tool to uncover more serious crimes such as possession or manufacture of kiddie porn or actual criminal-sexual conduct events.

"In my experience, the fleeting chat has mostly led to something else,'' said Schaub, who is also a member of a national team of retired investigators who investigate missing children and online child exploitation cases.

It's a whole web of problematic liberal/lenient attitudes regarding predators.

CONCORD – Nashua and area police departments are cracking down on the use of the Internet to lure children to have sex, but judges are generally handing out brief terms in jail, county and state prosecutors said.

The crime of soliciting sex via the Internet is a Class B felony that can carry a term of 3½ to 7 years in state prison.

But Hillsborough County Attorney Marguerite Wageling said in nearly all cases, judges sentence offenders to a few months in the county jail.

More...