I read a while back about a national psychiatric association promoting the idea that pedophilia was just another direction for humanity – that it should be decriminalized and such folks just needed understanding.
Well, apparently, this idea has caught on with the Leftist media! Who knew?
from Free North Carolina
There are sex-crimes and there are sex-crimes, all of them are absolutely terrible. But the worst sex crime IMHO is pedophilia, sex with a child. Taking advantage of a child is an unforgivable crime.
But apparently liberal web-magazine Salon doesn’t think so, they seem to be trying to legitimize the practice.
The post below was written by my colleague Joe Newby and might make you ill (it sure made me ill).
On Tuesday, the ultra-left wing rag Salon published an article defending pedophiles, presenting them as poor, lonely souls who just want someone to love.
There’s only one problem. The people these individuals want to “love” are children. And Salon is apparently okay with that.
In the early 1970s, the psychiatric community ‘de-mental diseased’ homosexuality, saying it was part of the human condition. The obvious difference between these two situations is pedophilia
enlists demands the participation of children. This is not about the actions of two consenting adults (regardless one’s opinion about gayness).
I’m libertarian (small L). What you do or don’t do with your partner in the privacy of your bedchamber, as long as both consent, is no business of mine – nor of the government.
But children need to be protected! I know both men and women who were abused by pedophiles when they were kids, and have suffered profoundly as adults, as a direct result.
I wonder of part of this wholesale gender confusion is at least in part due to the rampant unreported abuse of children?
There, I said it.
I’ve posted before many times (ironically) about statists wanting control, and my shock at their so wanting. I’ve subsequently posted, I’m no longer shocked.
If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, it’s a f****** duck!
No shock here.
(from Brock Townsend)
Sock it the her!
But, But…she’s so cute?
(courtesy of Joel, in part)
Here’s a little something to pressure-test those cerebral arteries*:
20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency
The tide of red tape that threatens to drown U.S. consumers and businesses surged yet again in 2015, according to a Heritage Foundation study we released on Monday.More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.
After spelling out (this tiny piece of) the problem of overregulation, the writer goes and spoils it all by offering a plan for “reform” …
Congress needs to take immediate action to control the continued expansion of the administrative state, prevent further harm to the economy, and stem the erosion of individual liberty.
Right. Good. While we’ve got their attention, we should force the congress critters to promise to slow the earth’s rising sea levels and heal the planet, too. Then all our problems will be fixed.
Anyone who still thinks there’s a constituency in congress actually in favor of reducing the size and influence of government – or even ‘controlling its continued expansion’ – has not been paying the slightest bit of attention.
Personally, I see this as not just petty power and control (or even Grand power and control) but as yet another addition to the whole Cloward & Piven strategy. Just keep adding stressors to the bureaucracy of government until the whole thing collapses under it’s own weight.
Then, some savior will step forward to save us from the cataclysmic mire, involving controls we’ve dared not yet imagined, complete with the largest showers ever!
Image: AP Photo/Amel Emric
Bullets are cheaper and more effective than tear gas canisters.
Bullets and bombs are merely war’s last recourse. The actual front of most conflicts occurs in the vacuum between men’s ears. One gains a deep appreciation of this fact when watching the rapid social effects that result from orchestrated media onslaughts. The images and narratives carpet bombed daily into mentally defenseless targets demonstrate the undeniable power of air superiority.
And when spiritual fortifications have been flattened, antagonists put boots on the ground. That’s what’s happening now in unmoated areas of the West. But eventually even the dullest clucks begin to understand that virtue signaling on migration is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Conspicuously accommodating 100 brown people is a boast, while 100 million is a eulogy. And most prefer their praise served warm.
So what we are seeing presently in Europe is a people slowly realizing their moral vainglory is best taken in moderation. Unfortunately for them, that doesn’t much address the designs of a billion or so global refugees fleeing the war in Syria. You don’t simply lock the door after other people have decided they want in.
For once a large enough number of outsiders determine your house is precisely what they want, seeking your permission loses much of its appeal. That’s when fences start falling, tear gas starts wafting, and it dimly begins to dawn that invasion doesn’t require the Red Army.
Here’s one piece on the siege of Indomeni.
This is on the frontiers of Europe. (Not to mention the chaos already inside London, Paris and Germany)
And the current American administration has essentially told the Border Patrol to stand down. And has cut their numbers and budget.
Is this the future image on our borders?
No, of course not.
We are already looking the other way…
The ozone issue was an early misuse of science for a political agenda. It was a practice run for global warming with several of the same people involved.
Attempts to ratify the Kyoto Protocol included claims that the Montreal Protocol, designed to save the ozone layer, was a success. It wasn’t, because there was no problem in the first place.
Chlorofluorocarbons then, like CO2 today, were never a problem.
Environmentalists used a natural change of ozone and CO2 to blame human activity. With ozone, the “urgent problem” was a slight decline in atmospheric levels over Antarctica; with CO2, a slight increase at Mauna Loa.
Both times, they then found and funded scientists to produce the “scientific” evidence.
I explained the problem to the Canadian Parliamentary Committee Hearing on Ozone. I didn’t want to attend, but it was a legal order. It was the fiasco I expected.
I’ve written before in this venue that ‘Science’ with a pre-determined outcome ceases to be science.
There seems to be a group of individuals who hate humans, who wish to vilify them and their actions as being ‘bad’ for the planet. Of course, this doesn’t mean wholesale pollution by industries (corporations) should be allowed.
It DOES mean there is an agenda attached to this movement. And it has attached itself – parasitically – to the Green movement, not unlike the Progressives who have attached themselves to the Democratic (and Republican) Parties.
Once again, it is ALL about CONTROL!
When I ran across this article on Facebook, I truly thought it must be either dizinformazia, or an article culled from The Onion.
After a little side research, I determined this to be the genuine article. By a genuine LGBT activist. Who is quite obviously NOT a libertarian!
Famous LGBT Activist Reveals The Scary, Real Goal Of The Bathroom Battle (And It’s Not Bathrooms…It’s Way Worse)
What you may have been suspecting has been confirmed. LGBT activists’ end goal is not ruling over the bathroom. It’s obliterating the family. Riki Wilchins, a famous transsexual who recently wrote a piece in the gay publication The Advocate, revealed that many conservatives and even LGBT activists are missing the forest for the trees.
Titled,“We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,” Wilchins says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether. The “binary” refers to gender distinction, and getting rid of the “heterobinary structure” is the goal. Wilchins writes that the fact that we are arguing over male and female facilities is proof that we still have far to go–that there should be no gender distinctions in general.
In fact, Wilchins points to an emerging group of people who don’t want to affiliate as any gender. Life Site News explains, “’Non-binary’ people don’t identify as male or female and they often want to be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘hir’ or ‘zer.’ So the fact that there are even intimate facilities that reflect the “binary” truth about gender should change, Wilchins wrote.”
If you are confused, you are not alone. But beneath all of the titles and non-titles, the insidious plan is the destruction of the family, reveals Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist.
“What we are really talking about is the abolition of sex. And it is sex that the trans project is serving to abolish legally, under the guise of something called ‘the gender binary.’ Its endgame is a society in which everyone is legally de-sexed. No longer legally male or female. And once you basically redefine humanity as sexless you end up with a de-humanized society in which there can be no legal ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ without permission from the State. Government documents are already erasing the terms. In such a society, the most intimate human relationships take a hit. The family ends up abolished.”
Morabito hits home the point: “Sex distinctions are the germ of all human relationships. Abolishing them legally basically abolishes family autonomy. And this is an act of violence against children because it would serve at some point to separate them from their origins. Every child’s first transcendental question is ‘Where did I come from?’ If the law will not allow the child to see his own origins and wholeness in the faces of a mother and a father, it destabilizes the child’s sense of self. It creates personal dysfunction in children and basically ends up spreading more dysfunction and even dystopia in society.”
This is scary. If Morabito and other cultural watch-dogs are right, the bathroom battle is far more serious than many think. We need to really pray and ask God for help–before it’s too late and our future generations end up really damaged. Do you agree? (Faith Family America)
SO. Either Ms. Wilchins is a dystopian uber-Statist of the first order, or is a deepest cover agent promoting such nonsense reductio ad absurdum*!
I truly hope it is the second choice offered.
If this is indeed the true ultimate agenda, it goes way beyond men ‘self-identifying’ as female to visit women’s rooms and/or taking surreptitious photos of women and girls, or worse!
But, as The President is taking a hard line on this issue, ‘blackmailing’ the States to conform to this agenda in their schools, or lose federal funding(!), and many believe him to be a variety of Marxist…
*Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. (Wikipedia)
…or your mustache or surfboard. Your choice. :-)
(from Free North Carolina)
Aristotle taught that “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these things retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.”1 In this paper I want to explore Hume’s views on the proper size and scale of political order.
Size and scale are not the same thing. The scale of a thing is the size appropriate to its function. Scale for human things is the human body and its capacities. Classical architects have longed explored the relation between the human frame, its sensory capacities, and the proper size of doors, windows, courtyards, gardens, the width of streets, plazas, and so forth.
What is the proper size and scale of political order? The answer depends on what we think the function of political order is. Plato and Aristotle thought the function of political association is to achieve human excellence. Since virtue is acquired through emulation of character, face to face knowledge is required of political participants, and this places a limit on the size of the polity.
Aristotle said it should contain “the largest number which suffices for the conduct of life, and can be taken in at a single view.”2 Another classical measure was that one should be able to walk across the polity in a single day. The ancient Greek republics were of this human size and scale.
I’ve asked this question previously. What is the function of political order? (government?) Is it to ‘nanny’ the population into some pre-determined ideal – pre-determined by the (almighty, all-knowing) government? Or is it to allow individuals to be FREE; free to make their own choices and mistakes, and perhaps learn from them? Or not? THEIR choice?
And allow them to follow whatever path they choose, as long as it doesn’t impinge on the ability of others to follow THEIR path?
Sadly, I believe most Americans are so fed-up by the ongoing political machine that they don’t care. And, anyway, they are too busy trying to eke out an existence for themselves and their families, with the ever-present demon of surveillance and taxation wolves at the door. Or already inside.
How many different taxes and fees are you forced to pay? And how many agencies are recording your movements, actions and attitudes, through direct physical surveillance, monitoring email, cell phones and social media? Information many times given up by you voluntarily.
What kind of political order do YOU want?
And do you even have a choice, anymore?
DEFLECTION is a time-honored technique of propaganda and argument. State that your enemy is doing thus-and-such, whether or not they actually are, and YOU are actually doing it!
Case in point: Wholesale terrorism and espionage as performed by the Eastern Bloc (1920-1990), whilst constantly berating the West for having done so.
Regarding current history:
(in part, from Brock Townsend)
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including Are Cops Racist? and The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe (forthcoming June 2016).
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
For almost two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presidential task force on policing.
Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still venerated as a martyr. And now police officers are backing off of proactive policing in the face of the relentless venom directed at them on the street and in the media. As a result, violent crime is on the rise.
The need is urgent, therefore, to examine the Black Lives Matter movement’s central thesis—that police pose the greatest threat to young black men. I propose two counter hypotheses: first, that there is no government agency more dedicated to the idea that black lives matter than the police; and second, that we have been talking obsessively about alleged police racism over the last 20 years in order to avoid talking about a far larger problem—black-on-black crime.