Re: This monster needs to be kept in a CAGE

[Steven Mills]

On 19 Jul 2020, blinking...@gmail.com posted some
news:7f5be232-6b63-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

> https://abc7.com/sex-offender-relocates-to-lake-elsinore-authorities-sa
> y/6324284/
>
> Look at it's face in that picture. YIKES!
>
> Why the hell are we coddling subhumans like this?
> Would you want this thing living next door to you?

Democrats turned him loose. Nancy Pelosi never said a word.

Remember that when you vote.

It just doesn't get any better than this. Nancy Pelosi marched in a parade
to honor NAMBLA hero Harry Hay. Now she isn't returning any calls.

Nancy Pelosi's office decided not to respond.

After three phone calls to the office of the San Francisco Democrat who
will be the Speaker of the U.S. House if her party wins the November
elections, she ducked.

When Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider was told that the subject of the
call was Pelosi's participation in the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender Pride Parade -- the welcoming tone on the other end
turned frosty. Having written the original column in this space that
revealed Pelosi had marched in the parade that honored man/boy love
advocate Harry Hay ("When Nancy Met Harry"), I have to say I was not all
that surprised. After all, if you're busy charging the House Republican
leadership with a "cover-up of Foley's internet stalking" (Crider's words
as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle) of teenage boys, the last
thing you would want anybody to notice is that your boss found it just
ducky to lend her support to the honoring of a man who was famous for
talking about men having relationships with "the nine-year-old, the
eleven-year- old, the twelve-year-old, the fourteen-year-old...."

This is embarrassing stuff when elections outside the moral cloudiness of
San Francisco hang in the balance. If you're a Democrat in Pennsylvania or
Montana or Indiana -- actually a Democrat just about anywhere outside of
the City by the Bay -- this will not help you win points. To confess that
your first vote as a freshman Democrat in Congress will be to put someone
in the Speaker's chair who is apparently afraid to condemn Harry Hay's
philosophy even after the man is dead for fear of angering his supporters
-- this is a tough sell to all those Soccer Moms and Dads with boys.


BUT THERE IS A SECOND QUESTION that this incident with Nancy and Harry
brings to the fore. A question that goes far, far beyond Pelosi's double
standard.

Remember Bill Clinton's November Surprise?

After spending the 1992 presidential campaign relentlessly campaigning on
the idea that, in the memorable words of Clinton campaign manager James
Carville, "it's the economy, stupid," a newly elected Clinton, not even
settled into the White House, suddenly came forth with something else
entirely as his first legislative issue.

Gays in the military.

Writing in his memoirs, ex-Clinton aide and now ABC-TV Sunday morning
anchor George Stephanopoulos labeled gays in the military "the stealth
issue of the 1992 campaign." Clinton had religiously ignored the issue in
large public settings. There was no mention of it in his convention
acceptance speech, the candidate never said a word about it in his debates
with then-President George H.W. Bush, and no Clinton campaign commercials
ever touched the subject. What he did say, Stephanopoulos writes, was said
at quiet "fundraisers before gay groups and in a questionnaire for the
Human Rights Campaign Fund." And that was it.

Yet on November 5, 1992, a mere two days after the election, the New York
Times gleefully headlined a story this way: "GAY AREAS ARE JUBILANT OVER
CLINTON." Suddenly, with the election safely over, the Times told its
readers not that the election had great meaning for "the economy, stupid."
No, what readers were now told was that the election was "a historic
moment in the history of gay politics" and that the gay rights movement
would be "full and open partners in the government." Six days after that
story, on November 11, the specifics began to come clear. The first item
on this "stealth" agenda was, according to the Times front-page headline:
"CHALLENGING THE MILITARY." Reported the paper: "In saying today that he
would honor his campaign pledge to lift the military's ban on homosexuals,
President-elect Bill Clinton is challenging one of the military's most
entrenched traditions."

Sworn into office a little over two months later, the issue instantly
became Clinton's first legislative fight, astounding those who had bought
into Carville's "it's the economy, stupid" line. It set off a battle royal
between Clinton and military traditionalists, led by the unlikely
combination of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, Senate
Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn (D-GA), and Senate President Pro Tem
Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The last-named, according to Stephanopoulos,
confronted Clinton personally at the White House, insisting that such a
move "will lead to same-sex marriages and homosexuals in the Boy Scouts."

Byrd was nothing if not prescient. Fourteen years later the issue of same-
sex marriages is the court-ordered law in Massachusetts, quickly forcing
the Bush White House to endorse a constitutional amendment banning them. A
number of individual states haven't bothered to wait, frantically putting
the issue on statewide ballots and amending their own constitutions to
thwart court decisions that would undermine the centuries old tradition of
marriage between a man and a woman. As to the Boy Scouts, their insistence
on maintaining a policy of heterosexuals-only as scoutmasters spent the
Clinton-era being taken all the way to the Supreme Court. In a narrow, 5-4
decision written by then Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court
decided in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the Scouts had a right to
set their own standards for scoutmasters. Still, in a number of localities
the venerable organization has been pilloried as a gathering of bigots,
its commercial or religious sponsors withdrawing from sponsorship. Little
noticed at the time, when there was a move in the House to revoke the Boy
Scouts' charter over the issue of admitting gay scoutmasters Pelosi ducked
that one too by voting "present."


SO HOW DOES ALL OF THIS relate to Pelosi's refusal to condemn San
Francisco's favorite advocate of man/boy love?

There is a growing realization that l'affaire Foley has, unexpectedly and
with potentially stunning long-term political consequences, turned a
premature and decidedly unwelcome national spotlight on what many consider
to be the next "gay liberation" issue after same-sex marriage and gay
adoption: the eventual legalization of man-boy love.

One need do no more than look northward to Canada and you will find the
newly elected Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper
fighting off an effort by Canada's most prominent gay rights group,
Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), to have the age of
consent for gay sex lowered to 16 from 18. Take a trip to the Canadian
LifeSiteNews.com, tap in "age of consent" and you will find this headline:
GAY ACTIVISTS ASK CANADA TO LOWER AGE OF CONSENT FOR ANAL SEX, NATIONAL
POST AGREES. The story begins this way:

Homosexual activists have long sought to distance themselves from
pedophiles, however Canada's most prominent homosexual activist group has
now demanded the lowering (of) the age of consent for anal sex to 16 from
18. Surprisingly, Canada's National Post, regarded by some as a
'conservative' paper, has come out in favor of the proposal.

The article goes on to quote a Canadian gay activist as saying, "There's
no reason to treat anal sex differently than other sexual acts except to
stigmatize gay and bisexual men."

In other words, lowering the age of consent to allow young boys to be the
sexual partners of older men -- men like Mark Foley - is being presented
not, as it now is with the vast majority of Americans, as an issue of
sexual predators and child molesting. The objective is to transform it
into an issue of discrimination -- a civil right.

Which brings us back to when Nancy met Harry -- and her refusal to take
the opportunity I offered her office, three times -- to distance both
Pelosi and the Democratic Party from Harry Hay's agenda for America, an
agenda that we now know is being actively pushed on the Canadian
government by the powerful Canadian gay rights movement.


WHAT PRECISELY COULD A LEFT-WING gay rights agenda, sprung as a surprise
after the November election as Bill Clinton did back in 1992, actually do
about this with the control of a Democratic Congress headed by a Speaker
Pelosi and a Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? After all, the age of
consent in the United States is frequently a state, not a federal issue.

Ironically, the very first thing they could do would have let Mark Foley
himself off the legal hook. Foley is in potentially serious legal trouble
because he may have violated a federal law that forbids communication over
the Internet (those pesky salacious e-mails) for the purposes of enticing
a minor -- defined as under the age of 18 -- to be involved in a criminal
sexual act. Another: missing children. It is currently against federal law
to transport a minor -- again, a child under the age of 18 -- across state
lines to engage in criminal sexual acts.

There's more, of course. But the question is how could Pelosi and her
Harry Hay-minded allies use her power as Speaker to do this? Lowering the
age of consent would be the charge of the House Judiciary Committee. In a
Pelosi-led House that would mean a Judiciary Committee chaired by same-sex
marriage and gay adoption advocate Congressman John Conyers (D-MI). On the
Senate side it would be heard by a Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary
Committee chaired by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. Vermont, of course, is
the very liberal home of the first civil union legislation in the nation,
signed by then-Governor Howard Dean, now the Chairman of the Democratic
National Committee.

So does the repeated refusal of Nancy Pelosi to apologize or back away
from her connection to the late Harry Hay's agenda have any meaning for
the future of America beyond just another tired double standard? What do
you think?

Tell me again why social conservatives want to sit this one out?

https://web.archive.org/web/20061030024647/https://spectator.org/dsp_artic
le.asp?art_id=10485