Posts Tagged ‘prison’

Just One More Of The Many Ways Liberalism Has Screwed Up America: A Nation Of Out-Of-Control Crime

August 18, 2014

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.  But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. — 2 Timothy 3:1-9

Oh, yes.  God knew you would come, Democrat.

Buried in the body of a recent article in the Los Angeles Times is an indictment of what ought to be the CRIME of liberalism:

In Los Angeles County, with a quarter of California’s jail population, male inmates often are released after serving as little as 10% of their sentences and female prisoners after 5%.

Fresno County logs show the jail is releasing criminals convicted of crimes that used to rate prison time: fraud, forgery and trafficking in stolen goods.

Law enforcement officials say that criminals have been emboldened by the erratic punishment.

“Every day we get guys who show up in the lobby, stoned out of their minds,” said one parole agent who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak about the issue. “I’ll have 15 arrested, and 12 to 14 will be released immediately.”

“We are, for lack of a better term, completely impotent,” he said.

For law enforcement agents, the jailhouse revolving door is frustrating.

Leopoldo Arellano, 39, was in and out of custody at least 18 times from 2012 to 2014 for violating parole, criminal threats and at least four incidents of domestic battery, according to Los Angeles County jail logs.

San Diego County let parolee Demetrius Roberts go early 12 times; mostly for removing or tampering with his GPS tracker, which he was required to wear as a convicted sex offender.

Here was a statistic from the same article that ought to be utterly shocking to you:

From a relatively stable population of less than 25,000 in the 1970s, the number of state prisoners rose to a high of 174,000 in 2007.

For the record, the prison population in California was 287,444 in 2010, according to page one – the “CDCR Population Highlights” – of the California Prisoner and Parolees report provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as of 2010.

That, for the record, is a 1,050 percent change from that stable population we used to have just a few short decades ago.  And we aint seen nothin’ yet.

My God, what the hell happened?  By which I mean, how did this HELL happen?

I want you to note carefully which political ideology is COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY responsible for this shocking moral travesty:

Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor’s office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970.

I quoted that fact here in a different article focusing on the economic ruin of liberalism upon the state of California.

Liberalism is a cancer that begins with a diseased moral will and then metastasizes through the brain until  it ultimately kills the body.

What we’re seeing in Obama’s incredibly stupid and liberal foreign policy regarding the treatment of thug regimes and terrorism we are similarly seeing in liberalism’s incredibly stupid and depraved domestic policy regarding the treatment of thug criminals: abject moral weakness inspires evil and savage brutality.

Under Obama, the number of terrorists has DOUBLED.  Even the liberal Politifact has been forced to acknowledge this FACT.

The Associated Press reports that al Qaeda groups have surged and that terrorism has spiked under Obama.  And just since Obama was re-elected in 2012, there has been “a 43 percent increase in the number of terrorist attacks in 2013 from 2012, according to statistics provided by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.”

Obama mockingly called the ISIS terrorists “JV” and declared that the Islamic caliphate they wanted to create was a “feckless delusion” “that is never going to happen.”  But it was OBAMA who was “JV” and the terrorists now have the caliphate that Osama bin Laden DREAMED of all because of Barack Obama’s liberalism – by which I mean Barack Obama’s foolishness, depravity and moral cowardness that define liberalism.

Sarah Palin predicted that a Russia emboldened by a weak Obama would seize Ukraine.  Under Obama, Putin DID it.

The shambles and wreckage of Obama’s disastrously failed foreign policy is as amazing as it is humiliating.

The outgoing head of the Defense Intelligence Agency testified under oath that the threat of terrorism is worse than it’s ever been.

I still remember the left going utterly batpoop over Bush Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s observation that “you go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”  See here, here and here for a few examples of that batpoopage.  The thing was, that statement was simply necessarily factually TRUE as any FOOL should know.  I mean, hell, do liberals believe that Democrat Woodrow Wilson didn’t go to war with the army he had in World War I?  Is it their belief that Democrat FDR didn’t go to war with the army he had in World War II?  Do these sick fools think that Democrat Harry Truman didn’t go to war with the army he had in Korea?  Do they actually think that Democrat LBJ asked the communists to please allow him to go to war with a more prepared army in Vietnam???  Liberals are morally sick and morally depraved and therefore as a result they are intellectually idiotic.  And they are nothing but naked hypocrites and liars without shame or honesty.

That’s why conservatives have for DECADES been arguing that America needs to have a powerful military and project the powerful willingness to use that power so that our enemies will fear us and not want to push us into a war that they will lose.  But liberalism is abject moral cowardice and abject moral evil.  And so they weaken us every chance they get – from when Bill Clinton gutted the military before 9/11 and therefore emboldened Osama bin Laden to attack an America that he called a “paper tiger” to when Barack Obama gutted the military to the weakest levels since BEFORE World War II and emboldened pretty much EVERY thug to do whatever his evil heart desired.

When you project strength and resolve, you win.  When you let an Obama lead from behind, you lose and lose bigger and bigger until the fool is gone or until you’ve imploded and collapsed.

What we see in Obama’s foreign policy is the same identical weakness that we’re seeing at home.  Obama ROUTINELY releases criminal illegal aliens who are guilty of crimes including murder and rape.

Our criminal justice system is a sick joke.

And liberals want to disarm the American people and leave them helpless to every criminal thug so they can also be ultimately helpless against their fascist government dictatorship.

And yet I note that it was – AGAIN  as ALWAYS – morally depraved and morally idiotic liberalism that beginning in the 1960s began to decide that it was somehow immoral to confine mentally ill people against their will.  And now we are completely helpless against our lunatics because we can’t put them away.  Just as I note that if you are black, or Hispanic, or a young person – by which I mean if you are a damned LIBERAL according to the statistics of who votes Democrat – you are so many more times likely to murder somebody with a gun than somebody who is likely to vote Republican it isn’t even funny.

You can mock God all you want, fool liberal.  But His Word is truth and it will ultimately echo in your ears from the fires of hell as your folly is manifest to all men.

The passage describing the perilous times that will characterize the last days notes the dilemma of “silly women.”  And I cannot help but note the following fact:

Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup’s History
Obama wins women’s vote; Romney has eight-point edge among men
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama won the two-party vote among female voters in the 2012 election by 12 points, 56% to 44%, over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, Romney won among men by an eight-point margin, 54% to 46%. That total 20-point gender gap is the largest Gallup has measured in a presidential election since it began compiling the vote by major subgroups in 1952.

“Silly women” indeed.  And just as Paul told us would happen in God’s prophetic word, the correlation between silly women and perilous times is 1oo%. with the increase of the former directly causing the increase of the latter.

Now, as a caveat, my godly mother is more likely to vote conservative than I am.  But she is not the face of women anymore; the liberal entitlement-whore and, yes – for what its worth – slut, Sandra Fluke is.  And the feminist of today desperately wants evil on top of evil.

Liberalism is powerless against evil primarily because it IS evil and wants evil to spread like the cancer that evil is.

The Los Angeles Times had the following article – from which I pulled the above quote – on its front page Sunday, August 17, 2014:

Early jail releases have surged since California’s prison realignment
By Paige St. John
August 16, 2014, 11:00 AM
Sharelines:
-In L.A. County, male inmates often are released after 10% of their sentences, and female prisoners after 5%
-Across California, over 13,500 inmates a month are being released early to relieve crowding in local jails

Jesus Ysasaga had been arrested multiple times and ordered by the court to keep away from his ex-girlfriend. Two parole boards sentenced him to nearly a year in jail for stalking, drunkenness and battery..

But the Fresno County jail would not keep him.

Four times in the summer of 2012, authorities let Ysasaga go, refusing two times to even book him. The jail had no room.

Ysasaga’s attorney, Jerry Lowe, said the parade of convicted offenders being turned away from the jail was common. “It became quite a joke,” he said.

Across California, more than 13,500 inmates are being released early each month to relieve crowding in local jails — a 34% increase over the last three years. A Times investigation shows a significant shift in who is being let out of jail, how early and where.

The releases spring from an effort begun in 2011 to divert low-level offenders from crowded state prisons to local jails. The move had a cascade effect, forcing local authorities to release their least dangerous inmates to make room for more serious offenders.

“It changes criminal justice in California,” said Monterey County Chief Deputy Edward Laverone, who oversees the jail. “The ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ is gone.”

State and local officials say that they are making every effort to ensure the releases pose little danger to the public, freeing those believed to be the least risky convicts, usually parole violators and those convicted of misdemeanors.

But an analysis of jail data has found that incarceration in some counties has been curtailed or virtually eliminated for a variety of misdemeanors, including parole violations, domestic violence, child abuse, drug use and driving under the influence.

In Los Angeles County, with a quarter of California’s jail population, male inmates often are released after serving as little as 10% of their sentences and female prisoners after 5%.

Fresno County logs show the jail is releasing criminals convicted of crimes that used to rate prison time: fraud, forgery and trafficking in stolen goods.

Law enforcement officials say that criminals have been emboldened by the erratic punishment.

“Every day we get guys who show up in the lobby, stoned out of their minds,” said one parole agent who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak about the issue. “I’ll have 15 arrested, and 12 to 14 will be released immediately.”

“We are, for lack of a better term, completely impotent,” he said.

For law enforcement agents, the jailhouse revolving door is frustrating.

Leopoldo Arellano, 39, was in and out of custody at least 18 times from 2012 to 2014 for violating parole, criminal threats and at least four incidents of domestic battery, according to Los Angeles County jail logs.

San Diego County let parolee Demetrius Roberts go early 12 times; mostly for removing or tampering with his GPS tracker, which he was required to wear as a convicted sex offender.

In Stockton last year, a furor erupted over the repeated releases of Sidney DeAvila, another convicted sex offender. He had been brought to the San Joaquin County jail 11 times in 2012 and 2013 for disarming his GPS tracker, drug use and other parole violations.

He was freed nearly every time within 24 hours, even when he was brought to the jail by the state’s Fugitive Apprehension Team.

Days after being let out early in February 2013, DeAvila went to his grandmother’s house, raped and killed the 76-year-old woman, then chopped her body into pieces. He was found later that day with the woman’s jewelry around his neck.

The family is suing the state and San Joaquin County for negligence. DeAvila pleaded guilty to murder and rape last month and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), a former City Council member, said the parole system has no teeth. “It’s justice by Nerf ball,” she said. “We designed a system that doesn’t work.”

The problem stems from the huge increase in the number of state prisoners over the last four decades, spurred by increasingly harsh sentencing laws passed during the war on drugs. Felons could serve decades behind bars for repeat convictions of drug use and other nonviolent crimes.

From a relatively stable population of less than 25,000 in the 1970s, the number of state prisoners rose to a high of 174,000 in 2007.

Crowding reached dangerous levels, leading federal judges to rule in 2009 that the conditions were unconstitutional. When Gov. Jerry Brown took office in 2011, the state was under orders to cap prison counts at 110,000.

Brown’s solution, called “realignment,” shifted the responsibility for parole violators and lower-level felons to the counties, putting inmates closer to home and potentially improving their prospects for rehabilitation.

Lawmakers tried to ease the load on counties by expanding credits for good behavior and jailhouse work, cutting most sentences in half. Even with that, state officials concede, they knew jails did not have enough room.

The shift flooded county jails, many of which already were freeing convicted offenders under a melange of local court rulings, federal orders and self-imposed caps.

“If you’ve got a prison population and a jail population, if you’re going to release anywhere, you might better release at the lower level,” said Diane Cummins, Brown’s special advisor on realignment and criminal justice policy.

The number of prisoners released from county jail because of crowding has grown from an average of 9,700 a month in 2011 to over 13,500 a month today, according to state jail commission figures. In October, those records show releases surged to over 17,400.

Jailers are struggling to decide whom to let go.

Monterey County simply reduces everyone’s sentence by five days. Jailers call it the “five-day kick.”

Fresno County uses a ranking system that considers the type of crime, the sentence and other factors. Each day, the first to be released are those at Level 1: unconvicted individuals accused of misdemeanors. Several times a month, the jail releases those at the top of the scale, Level 11: sentenced felons.

Kern County Sheriff’s Lt. Greg Gonzales said the jail he manages hits its maximum capacity two or three times a week. When that happens, inmates must go, 20 to 30 at a time. Parolees and those who have served the most time on their sentences leave first. Those who have committed violent crimes or molested a child stay the full term. The county is experimenting with a risk-assessment system that tries to gauge the likelihood an offender will commit future crimes.

Gonzales does not pretend the decisions are foolproof. “Every release is a bad release,” he said. What happens after “is a crap shoot.”

In counties with crowded jails, the releases have lowered the penalties for a host of misdemeanors, such as drunk driving, parole violation and spousal abuse.

In Fresno County, misdemeanor offenders were sentenced to an average of three months in jail but served 19 days, according to an analysis of jail logs. Drunk drivers got an average of 60 days but served 16.

In Los Angeles County, those convicted of child endangerment had sentences averaging six months but served 74 days.

Contra Costa County went decades without releasing a single inmate early, but had to start doing so in 2013. “We still have capacity for misdemeanors, DUI,” said Undersheriff Mike Casten, but minor “drug possession? Not in jail.”

Law enforcement authorities and other officials say that releasing prisoners has raised safety issues, although there have been no studies on the effect.

At a shelter for battered women in Stanislaus County, where the jail releases more than 500 inmates early each month, caseworkers are convinced that decreasing sentences has emboldened abusers.

“They say, ‘Go ahead and call the police, because nothing is going to happen to me anyway,’ ” said Belinda Rolicheck, director of the Haven Women’s Center.

Jail records show the average sentence in Los Angeles County for disobeying a restraining order was 108 days, but violators were free in 28.

Last month in Fresno County, a domestic batterer was returned to jail on a one-year sentence for a probation violation after ignoring court orders to stay away from his partner. He was freed in nine days.

Time served varies considerably around the state — a situation that UC Berkeley law professor Barry Krisberg called “justice by geography.”

That is especially true for parole violators, who used to serve their time in state prison. Now they are locked up in jails and are frequently the first to be released, or not booked at all.

State logs obtained under California’s public records law show the time served for parolees jailed for spousal abuse ranged from 80 days in Placer County to 17 in San Joaquin and seven in Shasta.

Krisberg said stopping the early releases would require a fundamental change in California’s criminal justice system. Just “shifting the location of incarceration” from prisons to jails doesn’t change much, he said.

The Little Hoover Commission, an independent state policy agency that released a report last year that was critical of early releases, has recommended that California reform its complex sentencing laws, which have overwhelmed prisons with long-term inmates.

The commission has also recommended reducing bail so more inmates can afford to leave. State records show nearly two-thirds of the space in county jails is occupied by suspects awaiting trial.

But even political supporters of such reforms say the issue is an electoral land mine likely to stir campaign accusations of being soft on crime.

Sheriffs have launched their own silent reform by letting out prisoners when there is no room.

“We actually have a de facto sentencing commission in our sheriffs,” said Carole D’Elia, acting executive director of the Little Hoover Commission. “You have a crazy system of ‘Is the jail full today?’ “

San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Richard A. Vlavianos said that allowing jailers to override judges “does nothing but undercut integrity.… It loses public confidence. You lose integrity with the defendants.”

“All the way around, it is a bad thing,” he said.

All the way back in 2008 when I first began blogging as I saw the true evil and true danger of liberalism I provided an example of what we’re seeing documented in this Los Angeles Times story of what would happen as liberalism corrupted the police departments and law enforcement tactics and the criminal justice system in general:

A family is rudely awakened in the middle of the night by a gang of violent predators. They tie up the father, and then take turns repeatedly raping the wife and daughter until dawn, and then they take all the valuables and leave. The next day, the father hears that the thugs have been captured. He storms into the police station shouting, “Where are they?” And the police say, “We let them go.”

“You let them go? Didn’t you have any evidence?”

“Oh, yes. We confiscated several of the articles that were stolen from your home, and DNA from the men matches the semen found in your wife and daughter.”

“Then why did you let them go?”

“Because we’re a loving police department, that’s why.”

You tell me that isn’t happening now as you re-read the opening words of the LA Times story:

Jesus Ysasaga had been arrested multiple times and ordered by the court to keep away from his ex-girlfriend. Two parole boards sentenced him to nearly a year in jail for stalking, drunkenness and battery..

But the Fresno County jail would not keep him.

Four times in the summer of 2012, authorities let Ysasaga go, refusing two times to even book him. The jail had no room.

You wicked voters sowed the wind and now increasingly you’re going to reap the whirlwind.

Liberal feminist women can keep declaring they’re opposed to rapes and beatings all they want; but they keep voting for rape and for the rapists who rape and abusers who abuse to be freed over and over and over again.

Nihilistic elf-destruction is the essence of liberalism, just as it is the essence of evil.  The fact that everything you people want and everything you people do will ultimately lead to your burning in hell forever is the proof of that.

That’s why liberals keep demanding policies that will ultimately destroy lives as they seek to impose a big government totalitarian system that will result in the coming of the god they truly yearn to worship, a.k.a. the Antichrist.

I tried – in vain, I’m sure – to explain this to a liberal in my comments (see here as an example) from this article that the founding fathers predicted that his precious antichrist “separation of church and state” (i.e. the separation of God from America) would lead to America’s destruction as bad people overwhelmed the system and seized control of a country that would no longer be good as it kicked out God.

Liberals have booted God out of America.  And hell has moved into our house to take the place He used to have.

As I pointed out a couple of days ago regarding the trumped-up race-bating vicious destruction going on in Ferguson, Missouri, it is LIBERALS who are violently rioting.  Just like it is ALWAYS liberals who are violently rioting because the real essence of liberalism is ugly fascism.

And of course the liberal, secular humanist media that favors everything godawful is writing feverishly to foment as much fury in the shooting in Ferguson while steadfastly refusing to report on the fact that violent black-on-black gun crime has skyrocketed BECAUSE a liberal refused to implement the successful conservative stop and frisk policing technique that WORKED in reducing violent crime.  Nor do they seem to have the stomach to report on the massive systemic black-on-black gun crime in liberal thug Democrat bastion Chicago that are rampant AS WE SPEAK.

We were told that the shooting victim in Ferguson was a victim of racism.  Seriously, other than the fact that the police officer was white, what evidence do we have to believe that?  If a black police officer shoots a white perp, are white people entitled to erupt in racist rage knowing for certain without any other evidence beyond the officer’s color that he killed that poor, innocent white boy entirely because of his race?  You ought to have an inkling just how EVIL liberals are for that kind of thinking.  But that’s exactly how they think all the damn time.  We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back.  That’s what the witnesses the breathless leftist media kept interviewing.  False, we now know.  He was shot in the front.  That’s a rather huge difference, isn’t it?  We were told that Michael Brown was an innocent angel and shown pictures from five years ago just like what they did with a punk we later learned was a brutal thug by the name of Trayvon Martin.  False.  He was a 6’4″, 290-lb thug who physically assaulted a store owner during the commission of a strong arm robbery that took place just before the shooting.

In other words, everything the media told us up to this point was a lie.

We now have the report of what almost certainly took place.  The thug had his hands up in feigned surrender, but bum-rushed the officer who was forced to shoot and keep shooting as the thug kept running at him.

But thug liberal vicious, violent fascists riot in Ferguson and that’s the story.  No matter how false the story is.  And the fact that their story is pure bunk has nothing to do with anything; because to be a “liberal” is to be a LIAR.

Every time a new piece of evidence or information comes out that disconfirms the liberal race-baiting lies, the liberal roach-thugs in Ferguson violent riot.  Because liberals are fascists who hate truth.  I think of Acts 7:57 when I think of the left in Ferguson.  Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.  And Jesus may just as well have been thinking of the Democrat Party when He told the first Christians, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.”  Every time an effort is made to provide peace – every crowd control measure, every request for the National Guard to come in – and the liberal-roach thugs violently riot.  Because liberals are fascists who despise peace unless it’s the “peace” of militant Islam where they have all the power and get to impose all THEIR laws by brutal force.

And then Obama comes on television and presents a false moral equivalence between the violent fascist mobs who keep rioting and the police who are doing everything they can to somehow keep law and order in a lawless town of leftist mob thugs.  Just as Obama’s White House within just the last few days repeatedly presented a false moral equivalence between Israel for trying to protect itself from attack and the terrorist group Hamas that kept attacking Israel.

Obama claims that the black crime rate is the result of poverty and discrimination.  Which is a LIE.  The black crime rate today is CONSIDERABLY higher than it was in 1960 before the Great Society and the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights era.  So my question to you, liberal, is which is it?  When were you lying?  When you claimed that your Great Society, your War on Poverty, and your Civil Rights was helping rather than hurting, or now in the words of your wicked Fool-in-Chief???  Because either your last forty years was a complete lie or your Obama is a lie.  Or they were BOTH lies.  Which is correct???

The question comes to this: should the entire modern Democrat Party be impeached, or should Barack Obama be impeached?  Because at least ONE of them is viscerally dishonest.  And I for one am beyond sick of the lies and the false race-baiting bullcrap that is such a huge part of the Democrat Party’s playbook to divide America along with their gender divide, their wealth divide and their age divide that they’ve also created as partisan political gimmicks.

To be a progressive liberal is to be a demon-possessed moral lunatic who yearns for more baby genocide, more homosexual sodomy, more perversion of marriage and the family, more societal breakdown, and therefore more crime while they race-bait and lie their way to more and more fascist government thuggery as a tool of political vengeance against the opponents of liberalism.

But God knew that this would happen and told us all about it in His Word.  Just as He told us that the ultimate hero of liberalism – the Antichrist – was coming to take over the control of government and “fundamentally transform” it into the godlike state that the Democrat Party has been dreaming about since the mid-1960s.

Advertisements

Homosexual Sexual Assaults In Military Skyrocketing – And Also Why Sexual Assaults In Military Are Skyrocketing In GENERAL

January 2, 2014

First let’s have the news from the pages of the Los Angeles Times:

Air Force member’s allegation of sex assault brings him more grief
Male victims of sexual assault in the military rarely file complaints. When Air Force security guard Trent Smith did, his life got worse, he says.
By David S. Cloud
December 30, 2013, 9:19 p.m.

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — Shortly after he arrived at Ramstein Air Base in Germany in March 2012, Air Force security guard Trent Smith was at an off-base apartment when, he says, a male sergeant touched him and pressed him to go into the bedroom for sex.

“I said, ‘No, I don’t want to spend the night,'” Smith recalled. But Smith, 20, says he felt he had no choice. “I went along with it.”

For Smith, the encounter — which he reported up the chain of command three days later — began an emotional ordeal. As the months passed, his doctors say, the trim, polite airman with an engaging smile suffered bouts of anger, guilt and depression so severe that he contemplated suicide several times.

More disturbing for a Pentagon struggling to gain control of a seeming epidemic of charges concerning rape and unwanted sexual advances in the ranks, Smith’s attempts to get help only worsened his troubles. After a lengthy investigation, the military decided that no crime had occurred, and it later moved to discharge Smith on medical grounds.

The case highlights a little-recognized reality for the male-dominated military. Although members of Congress have focused their outrage on abuse of women in uniform, the Pentagon reported in May that 53% of the estimated 26,000 troops who were raped or forced into sex last year were men.

Although women are proportionally more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault — the Defense Department estimates that 6.1% of women and 1.2% of men are victims of sexual assaults — the fact that men so vastly outnumber women in the military means that the problem affects more men than women.

Only a fraction of those alleging rape or sexual assault file complaints with military police or prosecutors, as a rule, so the Pentagon’s most recent estimates are based on a confidential survey of service members. Smith was among those who did file an official report.

After a six-month criminal investigation, Brig. Gen. Charles K. Hyde, then commander of the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein, decided the sex was consensual, according to case records. The sergeant was admonished for an “unprofessional relationship” with a lower-ranking airman, the lightest punishment possible.

The Times is not naming the sergeant because he was not charged. He declined an interview request through a base spokesman at Ramstein. The spokesman, Maj. Tony Wickman, said the sergeant was considered an “above-average airman.”

As usual, of course, I turn out to be completely correct in my predictions from 2010:

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

And lo and behold, or for you French-surrender-monkey-loving liberals,  voilà.  Missile defense has taken on a whole new meaning under Obama just as I TOLD YOU SO.

Not only a  majority but a whopping majority – as in an even slightly larger majority that constituted a “landslide” for Obama in 2008 – of the rape cases involve some poor bastard who didn’t have adequate “missile defense” against some homosexual sodomy soldier (or sailor, because after all the openly homosexual Village People did sing that song, “In the Navy”).  Fully 53% of the rape cases in the military are men getting raped by other men.

The LA Times wants you to think that the 53% of cases of rape being against men is irrelevant given the ratio of male troops to female troops.  But I hasten to point out that less than 2% of the population is homosexual – and that “10% figure” is a giant load of crap that is merely a bellwether of the insane ideology of everyone reporting this easily refuted statistic as if it were even remotely true.  So we’ve definitely got the “gay military” I described back in 2008.  And if you don’t have kung fu missile defense, you’d better stay the hell out of Obama’s military unless you’re a guy who likes being the girl during your rape.  In which case you’ve come to the right place signing up for a tour of rump ranger duty.

I think of our prison system, where that less-than-2% of our population for some unknown reason (other than the biblical fact that their lifestyle is an “ABOMINATION” and “A DETESTABLE ACT”) constitute a massive percentage of our inmate population.  Go to prison or jail and you’re extremely likely to run into one of these innocent, wonderful homosexuals the media and the Democrat Party are so in love with.  To wit: if you’re entering the military or if you’re entering the prison system and you’re a heterosexual, sorry, dude.  Keep up with that “missile defense” and just do the best you can.  And remember that when they bend you over, you’re sacrificing your “virginity” for Obama’s glory.

This is the funny thing (unless you happen to be a heterosexual serviceman): sexual assaults in the military HAVE SKYROCKETED under the first “gay president” (aforementioned “gay” thing being according to überleftist MSNBC and Newsweek just in case you don’t want to take my word for it).

As an example, military sexual assault cases “skyrocketed” in 2012, according to the news reports.  Their words.  But then “there were more reported sexual assaults in the military in the first nine months of fiscal year 2013 than in all of fiscal year 2012.”  So let’s just say that the rate of the “skyrocketing” has “skyrocketed.”

And yes, that’s “rocket” as in what the poor bastard tries to protect himself from with “missile defense.”

Let me explain why it is that sexual assaults have skyrocketed under “first gay president” Obama.  It’s actually very simple: because Obama has purged “religion and morality” from the military that as “commander-in-chief” he has so much control over.  And without “religion and morality” you have NO MORALITY AT ALL.

I’ve pointed out the following point again and again:

Washington [as in George Washington, the Father of our country] said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

George Washington said:

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

John Adams completely agreed:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

Barack Hussein and the Democrat Party that stinks of all things Hussein are traitors to America and guilty of treason according to the men who fathered America and wrote our Constitution.  PERIOD.

Why were our founding fathers so right and Obama and the entire Democrat Party so treasonously and so wickedly wrong???

I wrote a brief response to a comment this morning that I think does a reasonable job expressing the reason why:

This gets to a far deeper problem with secular humanism: there ARE no grounds for morality.  To wit, if I am an atheist, what do I have to do such that I am not a “good atheist” the way one could easily point out that one is not a “good Christian” by comparing his or her moral behavior to the ethics of the Bible.  THERE IS NOTHING.  Stalin and Hitler and Mao were all “good atheists” even though they are responsible for way, WAY over the murders of 100 million people (and yes, for the official record, Hitler WAS an atheist, having been described as such by key members of his inner circle like Joseph Goebbels in private journals.

As an example of that last, here is the entry into Goebbels’ personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tues):

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Similarly, in a 1939 diary entry, Goebbels pointed out that Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler said a bunch of things about Christianity, such as that Christianity was the invention of sick minds.  Hitler was an atheist who pointed out to his inner circle that after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow.”

Liberals are fascists who believe what Hitler said to the masses because Hitler spoke as the Führer of Big Government Socialism (NAZI standing for “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and to them Government is God.  The morality of God must be supplanted and replaced with the “morality” of the State.  They ignore the fact that Hitler was a demon-possessed LIAR who told the people one thing and told his trusted inner circle something very different (the truth).

So what does one have to do to be a “bad atheist”???  What IS morality to these people???  And the answer is as chilling as the worst of Stalinism: it is whatever the hell they SAY it is at any given moment.

So Obama was a “good liberal” when he said that marriage was the union between one man and one woman in 2008, and he was a good liberal for saying the exact OPPOSITE the moment political expediency enabled him to do so.  Because ultimately the “morality” of liberalism is dishonesty and abject personal hypocrisy.

I like the morality of the Bible better.  Because “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever,” whereas the “morality” of liberalism is a constantly shifting thing that always and only benefits liberals and their perversions.

The reason that morality is irrelevant to liberal Democrats is the reason that Obama could swear in 2008 that “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” [and in fact said it on the very eve of the 2008 election to make sure we all heard him lying] and then said the EXACT OPPOSITE THING when it was convenient for him to do so.  Because liberalism stands for NOTHING but more liberalism.  It’s the same reason that your NEXT Democrat candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, did the same damn stinking lying dishonest depraved thing.

I repeat the moral lecture from a liberal to me, who said:

surely you cannot be so ignorant as to believe the eight mentions of homosexuality in the Bible are appropriate for total guidance in modern situations.

Because he prefers Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s constantly shifting stand and just as constantly self-centered and self-serving “morality” to the eternal morality of God and His Word.

“Morality” to a liberal is whatever the hell he or she wants it to be at any constantly shifting moment in time.  And of course every single time it shifts it will reinforce the ideology of liberalism.  And every single time it shifts it will agree with Satan and his depraved world and disagree with God and His Word.

If secular humanist liberals tell us not to rape, what does it matter???  Tomorrow they’ll tell us something very different, for one thing.  And give that liberals believe in evolution, aren’t they contradicting themselves???   Because after all:

The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice [p. 53, A Natural History of Rape, MIT Press, 2000,  Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer].

These evolutionists make it very clear that we’re rapists by evolutionary biology:

“Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (p. 190, emp. added). They further state that “[e]volutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape” (p. 55). In their proposed “scientific” evolutionary reasons why men rape women, they suggest that in some cases heavy metals such as lead “disrupt psychological adaptations of impulse control,” which may lead to a “higher rate of criminality” (p. 58). They state, “[l]ead may account for certain cases of rape, just as mutations may” (p. 58).

Of course, in our new gay military, the male circumvents the [politically unprotected] male’s choice, too.

No lesser evolutionary authority than William Provine pointed out that atheism and evolution equals zero morality or ethics:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

So the facts are (according to secular humanist liberal Democrats) that: 1) there is no God and that therefore 2) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists which means that 3) Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery.  and of course 4) the facts may change tomorrow when liberals say they changed 5) in order to suit liberals.  Oh, and 6) people vote “Democrat” because they are mindless and soulless meat puppets devoid of anything resembling free will.

And you seriously wonder why sexual assaults are flourishing in the age of Obama???

I just wonder when Newsweek will rightly put Obama on the cover as “the first buttrape president.”  I know that’s a truly crude term, but as ObamaCare rears its massively intrusive governmental ding dong and starts pushing it up their rears, that’s precisely how a lot of people who AREN’T either in the military or the prison system will feel…

Democrat Dick Durbin: ‘Give Me My Pork Or Else I’ll Murder Persecuted Religious Minorities All Over The Planet!’

December 10, 2011

When I say Democrats are genuinely vile, when I say that this is God damn America, please understand I’m not joking.

It’s really that bad:

Federal Panel on Religious Freedom at Risk of Losing Funding at Hands of Dems
By Molly Henneberg
Published December 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Staff at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom have been told to start winding down operations.
 
Chairman Leonard Leo says the commission will have to “close the offices at the end of the day on the 16th (of December).”
 
That’s if Congress does not approve $4 million in annual funding for the independent bipartisan commission, as well as re-authorize its mission, which is to advocate for persecuted religious minorities around the world and advise the U.S. government on related policy positions.
 
But Leo says Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has put a hold on funding for the commission until Congress sets aside money for something unrelated.
 
Durbin wants the U.S. government to buy a little-used state prison in Thomson Illinois and turn it into a federal lock-up. Durbin has said it will bring 1,100 jobs to the area and over $1 billion to the region. Republicans have opposed funding for the prison because the Obama administration initially considered sending Gitmo detainees there.
 
Leo says the uncertainty of the situation is frustrating and that his commission “is a sort of a hostage in this political fight.”
 
Democratic sources strongly deny a connection between money for the commission and money for the prison. They say there is legislation moving that will keep the agency open, but Democrats will want some unspecified reforms.
 
Since Durbin’s name is connected to the matter, it will get lawmakers’ attention, according to Bob Cusack, managing editor of The Hill newspaper. Durbin “is (Majority Leader) Harry Reid’s direct deputy. He’s the No. 2 Senate Democrat. He’s got a lot of power, so when he wants something people have to listen because he controls what happens on the Senate floor.”
 
The commission sent a letter last month to President Obama, asking him to come out in support of the group and “expeditiously communicate this support to the Senate.”
 
Late Thursday, the Obama administration told Fox News it’s working with Congress to reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and “believes that a robust commission is critical to advancing religious freedom around the globe.”

Blah, blah, blah, Obama, you worthless, self-righteous, posturing punk.  When will you quit flapping your lips for once in your life and actually DO something here?

It was just a couple of days ago that I learned that Barack Obama was trying to take the Bible away from families visiting Walter Reed military hospital.  While simultaneously trying to force the militant homosexual agenda onto the rest of the world.

It shouldn’t be all that astounding that the party of 54 million abortions – and that is NINE murdered human beings for every ONE Jew that Hitler murdered during WWII – would be like this.  And here’s another way to think about that reality as we approach Christmas: this is the political party that would have strongly encouraged the teenage Virgin Mary to abort her baby and murder Christianity in her womb once for all if they had the chance.

This is God damn America.  And the beast is coming.

Democrat Dick Durbin Gives His ‘Legitimacy’ To Terrorists

March 30, 2011

We are at a point where Democrats ought to have zero credibility, and the worst thing that should ever happen to someone’s reputation would be getting caught with your face in the same picture as a known or suspected Democrat.

But while we OUGHT to be there, we’re certainly not there yet.  There are fools and communities of fools who actually respect Democrats, and stupidly and naively believe they’re decent people.

So, as asinine and in fact as outrageous as it might seem, Democrats can add their “credibility” to others.

But being truly despicable people, Democrats have a tendency to lend said “credibility” to the very worst sorts of people.  Like terrorists.

For the record, I added the labeling to make it easier to identify both the terrorists and the dumbass in the photo.

Here’s a quick description of these guys Dick Durbin says are A-OK in his book:

Pictured with Senator Durbin [that’s the dumbass in the middle] is Jamal Said [the terrorist on the left], an unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case that led to criminal conviction. Said also reportedly raised money 11 years ago at an Islamic conference by asking for donations in name of a suicide bomber. More recently, he told a gathering of Muslim leaders in 2009, “We need to raise our children to know the martyrs of Gaza.”

Also in the photo [the terrorist on the right] is another unindicted terror trial coconspirator named Kifah Mustapha. According to the IPT, Mustapha serves as an imam for the Illinois Mosque Foundation. Last year days after becoming Illinois first state police chaplain, his appointment was revoked after ties to terror groups became public.

According to IPT, the Mosque Foundation has a long history of ties to terror organizations, even sponsoring a rally for a Hamas operative arrested in Israel. 

So we’ve got the cheerleader for suicide bombers and a guy who wants to radicalize our rapidly growing Muslim inmate population.

The guy who wants to raise money for suicide bombers’ families so terrorists can murder away knowing their families will be taken care of, the guy who wants the children to know these “martyrs” as heroes so the hate can continue to the next generation, is part of a murder plot against Israel’s innocent children going back decades.

And the guy who sought to be a “chaplain” so he could radicalize our prison population is part of a long effort to get the hate of Allah into our prison systems.  From an article in the Oxford Journal titled “Prison Islam in the Age of Sacred Terror“:

Research indicates that Islam is the fastest growing religion among prisoners in Western nations. In the United States, roughly 240,000 inmates have converted to the faith since the 9/11 attacks. According to federal law enforcement, Saudi-backed Wahhabi clerics have targeted these prisoners for terrorist recruitment.

An article on how state prisons are a breeding ground for radical Islam begins:

The four men accused of plotting to blow up synagogues and shoot down a plane all did stretches in state prisons – a major breeding ground for Islamic radicalization.

At least two of the suspects, James Cromitie and Onta Williams, entered the system as Baptists and were paroled as Muslims.

The concern about prisons incubating jihadists has been heightened in the debate over releasing Guantanamo terror suspects to facilities across the U.S.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has called America’s prisons “fertile ground for extremists.”

A 2006 study called “Out of the Shadows” found “tight-knit communities of Muslims in prison are ripe for radicalization, and could easily become terrorist cells.”

And the entire organization for which Durbin is lending his “credibility” is waaaaayyy beyond merely dubious.

Confronted with this, Durbin was unapologetic.  These people are perfectly fine.  What they’re doing is great.  And if you don’t want to be murdered in a giant explosion by a suicide bomber, you’re just a racist anti-Muslim bigot.

So just why do Democrats want to legitimize terrorists who want nothing more than your hot sticky jugular-vein blood all over their filfthy hands?  I now say “dumbass Democrats” rather than just “dumbass Dick Durbin” because this is just so par for the Democrat course.

Here’s Durbin’s rationale, complete with it’s own refutation:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in an attempt to address what he claims is an increase in anti-Muslim bigotry, is relying on questionable statistics and a witness with a record of opposing virtually all law enforcement attempts to deal with Islamist-inspired terrorism.

In a statement, Durbin said his hearing Tuesday on the state of Muslim civil rights in America comes “in response to a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year including Quran burnings, restrictions on mosque construction, hate crimes, hate speech, and other forms of discrimination.”

While hate crime data for 2010 has not yet been released, FBI reports in recent years show no spike in anti-Muslim attacks. Those statistics show 107 anti-Islamic incidents reported in 2009, compared to 156 anti-Muslim crimes in 2006. In both reports, race related crimes dominated, and religiously-targeted attacks involved Jews as victims about nine times more often than Muslims in 2009 and more than five times more in 2006.

Durbin is literally championing the violent Muslims who are victimizing Jews at nine times the rate in America and calling the victimizers the “victims.”

Which is to say, Democrats are consistent, in that they are always fools all the time.

And what is the Fool-in-Chief up to?  He’s joining Osama bin Laden in siding with the Libyan rebels which include al Qaeda fighters, and who are led by Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi – a man who fought Americans troops in Afghanistan

No one knows a whole lot about these Libyan rebels, and everything we do know is bad.  Jonah Goldberg quipped yesterdat that this Libyan rebellion is kind of like Pelosi’s approach: “We have to pass this rebellion so you can find out what is in it.”

A Politico story covering Durbin’s hearing said:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said it wasn’t a response to Republican Rep. Peter King’s hearings this month on post-9/11 Islamic radicalization and terrorism — but it sure felt like it.

And that’s exactly what it was, of course.  And all King’s hearings tried to do was ask a question about the domestic radicalization of American Muslims.  And even the left-leaning Washington Post acknowledged that Democrats embarrased themselves in their coming unglued over simply asking a question and seeking information.

This is not just an unfortunate moment immortalized in a picture.  This is a demonstration of the morally bankrupt philosophy of not only Dick Durbin, but the entire Democrat Party.

And as usual, the mainstream media propaganda does not want you to know which side is right and which side is wrong.

Homosexuality Not Dangerous To America?

August 9, 2010

I’ll bet you didn’t know this.  And if you do know it, you didn’t hear it from the mainstream media.  Because we have the kind of media that doesn’t bother to report that the drunken scumbag who ran over an aged nun also happened to be an illegal alien who had been busted, handed over to the federal government, and then released.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, the guy who leaked so many thousands of documents that it’s positively unreal (it was 90,000 documents before the number exploded)?  He’s an open homosexual who says, “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” And the consequences are a gigantic, naked act of treason.

Now America, the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and a whole bunch of Afghani civilians who were unfortunate enough to cooperate with the United States, are “facing the consequences.”

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page
Bradley Manning, the prime suspect in the leaking of the Afghan war files, raged against his US Army employers and “society at large” on his Facebook page in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret memos, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

By Heidi Blake, John Bingham and Gordon Rayner
Published: 10:00PM BST 30 Jul 2010

The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t “have anything left” and was “beyond frustrated”.

In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: “Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,” and quoted a joke about “military intelligence” being an oxymoron.

Mr Manning, 22, who is currently awaiting court martial, is suspected of leaking more than 90,000 secret military documents to the Wikileaks website in a security breach which US officials claim has endangered the lives of serving soldiers and Afghan informers.

Supporters claim the war logs leak exposed civilian deaths in Afghanistan which had been covered up by the military, and Mr Manning’s family, who live in Pembrokeshire, said he had “done the right thing”.

The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.”

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”

Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”.

His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!”

Mr Manning was arrested at the end of May on suspicion of leaking a video of a US helicopter attack, and quickly became the main suspect when the Afghan war documents were leaked earlier this week.

You want another oxymoron, Mr. Manning?  How about “normal homosexuality”?

And now Bradley Manning has done to military secrecy what Judge – and fellow homosexual – Vaughn Walker has done to the institution of marriage.

Ah, these pesky homosexual relationships that gays want to normalize.

Only, they aren’t anything even CLOSE to “normal.”

[Updated March 3, 2011]: Take domestic violence:

The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of “men who have sex with men” (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews.

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is “substantially higher than among heterosexual men” and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.) […]

The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships “is a very serious public health problem.”

That’s not normal.  That’s a 406.5% increase in violence.

Maybe you’d rather consider married women, versus lesbian women in domestic partnerships:

  • The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, “the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.” [14]
  • A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention “indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time.”[15]

And what you actually find is that these statistics – as terrible as they are – are actually dramatically UNDERREPORTED:

“But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently…” (New York Times, November 6, 2000)

“Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community…” (Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403)

Why would any morally intelligent person want this? [end update]

When you compare drug use, suicides, rape, promiscuity/infidelity, psychiatric problems, child molestation, and sexually transmitted disease, the rates between heterosexuals in marriages and homosexuals in committed relationships are likewise so through the roof that it’s positively unreal.

And you can add treason to that list as well.

We’re not talking about normal, healthy people in normal, healthy relationships that should be encouraged in society.  We’re talking about broken, fractured people in broken, fractured relationships that are a lot more like cancer and a lot less like healthy.

But in order to be “tolerant,” I have to drill a giant hole in my head, scoop out all my brains, slam then on the floor, and then repeatedly stomp on them.

I have to accept whatever lame answer I’m spoon-fed regarding the massive issue with homosexuality in our prison system.  We’re assured that if we were thrown in jail for a weekend, we’d surely all turn gay for the duration of our sentences.  Baloney.  These violent felons are homosexuals with massive identity issues.  I’m forced to accept whatever answer I’m handed regarding the massive problem with homosexual Catholic priests and the fact that most of the sexual abuse occurred between priests and teenage boys.  80% of priests who sexually abuse do so with adolescent boys rather than prepubescent minors.  The “Pedophile Priests” are mainly homosexuals, and not so-called “pedophiles.”  And the cancer they have inflicted upon the once-respected Catholic Church, and upon the larger society, cannot be underestimated.

Homosexuality IS dangerous to America.  And a California homosexual judge just said that he frankly doesn’t care; he’s going to usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose his own twisted morality on a state that already has more than enough problems.

Progressivism Revealed In Words Of Hollywood Liberals Like Tom Hanks And Sean Penn

March 14, 2010

If you want to know what an idea looks like, it is a good idea to look for some examples of that thing in action.

Take “progressivism” or “liberalism,” for instance (please! as the old comic’s joke goes).

What do these people think?  What are they about?  What is their vision for the future, and for this country?  What do they want to do?

Well, why not ask Tom Hanks and Sean Penn, both famed Oscar-winning Hollywood liberals in good standing.

Let’s start with Sean Penn.  That way we can get rid of him faster.

Sean Penn, speaking about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, said:

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Well, what SHOULD we think about Hugo Chavez?  Let’s find out.

From May 2007:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan troops have seized an anti-government television channel’s broadcast equipment, the station said on Sunday, ahead of a controversial midnight EDT/0400 GMT takeover by President Hugo Chavez that will take the broadcaster off the air.

Chavez sparked international criticism with his decision to not renew RCTV’s license and to replace Venezuela’s most-watched channel with a state-backed network that will promote the values of his self-styled socialist revolution.

From November 2008 in the New York Review of Books:

Hugo Chávez Versus Human Rights

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

From July 2009 from the Human Rights Watch (which also includes numerous Venezuelan human rights violations):

Jul 31, 2009

The Venezuelan government has adopted and proposed measures that reduce the ability of government critics to voice their opinions and will seriously limit freedom of expression in Venezuela.

From August 2009 via the UK Telegraph:

Thirteen channels ordered to be closed by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday and more than 200 are expected to close in coming weeks.

The government broadcasting watchdog, Conatel, said that 34 radio outlets would be closed because they failed to comply with regulations.

However, critics claimed the crackdown infringed on freedom of speech and hundreds of protesters demonstrated in Caracas against the closures.

And, of course, that is simply scratching the surface of Hugo Chavez’s abuses of freedom:

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez’s rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment,” says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez’s Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

How about Hugo Chavez in his very own words:

CHAVEZ: “Yes, we are indoctrinating the children from the first grade through college, every grade, private schools. The ideology of the revolution! The ideology of socialism! Our ideology.”

So Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug who is without any doubt suppressing freedom of speech and other human rights in his country.  And if I may now refresh your memory about Sean Penn’s view of the man:

Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed.

The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela’s socialist president and called for journalists to be punished.

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

This one’s pretty easy.  Sean Penn demonizes the press for smearing a dictator by calling him a “dictator.”  And proceeds to argue that journalists who report the truth about Chavez be jailed.

Which is, of course, precisely what a dictator would do, isn’t it???

You see, Hugo Chavez is a dictator and thug; but he is a LEFTWING dictator and thug (just as most dictatorial thugs almost always are).

So, to put a thousand words into a picture:

Mind you, Sean Penn is not the only Hollywood liberal who has embraced this dictatorial thug. There’s Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Benicio del Toro, and others.

And earlier progressives eagerly flocked around the communist revolution under Vladimir Lenin and the fascist revolutions under first Benito Mussolini and then Adolf Hitler, too.  Which is to say that this behavior from progressives – as bizarre and as morally insane as it is – is part of a century-old tradition.

Let’s go back to Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement.  In his unintentionally chilling essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson wrote:

The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question as to the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operatesIt is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

On Wilson’s elitist view, American citizens truly ARE as clay.  They are incapable of understanding anything remotely complex.  And therefore the half-truths (which very often amount to whole lies) of the skillful demagogue become justified:

only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.

And how did the father of the progressive movement – who viewed men as uncomprehending clay waiting to be shaped by the half-truths of the skillful demagogue – view the Constitution?  Wilson wrote:

Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws

And uncomprehending clay men do not particularly deserve the inalienable rights bestowed upon them by a Constitution which itself is of little actual value.  Thus the father of the progressive movement wrote:

No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.

And what should be the limitations of power on the government Leviathan – which could easily be stripped of its limiting Constitution – over uncomprehending and infinitely malleable men of clay?  In The State, Wilson said that:

“Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”

In his “Congressional Government,” Wilson wrote that:

“I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”

In other words, Progressivism sees no limitations against the power of raw government power.

But I can certainly imagine such power being a negative thing.  As a student of history, I am vividly aware of the fact that in just one such form of government – communism – more than 100 million people were systematically and brutally murdered by their own government during peacetime.

Conservatives favor limited government with limited and well-defined powers.  Which is the exact OPPOSITE of fascistic totalitarian governments.  When you start demanding bigger and bigger and more activistic and socialist government, you begin meandering over to fascist land.

Thus you should understand why it  shouldn’t be surprising that Sean Penn and Danny Glover should think this way about Hugo Chavez.  Chavez is the Great Leader who shapes stupid clay men with his skillful demagoguery; and thus woe be unto any who seek to get in his way.

And, good news for progressives, the magnificent Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution is coming to America in the form of Barack Hussein Obama:

(CNSNews.com) – Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

And it’s completely reasonable that Chavez would think this way about Obama.  After all, the American president who did nothing while the Venezuelan dictator nationalized U.S. businesses has done plenty of nationalizing himself.  Which prompted Hugo Chavez to point out:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

Does the Obama administration share the totalitarian views of Hugo Chavez, and even admire them?  It certainly does, according to the words of Obama’s Diversity czar, Mark Lloyd:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.  This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

[…]

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him.  But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”

“Complaints,” of course, which bother genuine progressives such as Sean Penn and Obama’s diversity czar Mark Lloyd.  Which is why they think that “complainers” should be thrown in jail.

The left loves – and even worships as a surrogate for God – big government, and seemingly the bigger the better.  And of course, the very biggest governments, the ones that can control the populations and guide their nations to the next socialist Utopia, invariably are or descend into totalitarian regimes.

It’s not that Sean Penn is stupid for his views.  Sean Penn is accurately explaining his progressive philosophy.  He is not a politician who needs your vote, so he can be honest.  And as a multi-millionaire celebrity, he epitomizes the mindset of progressivism: that the peon clay masses are ignorant and need to be ruled over, and that they should surrender their wills and allow the government of their superiors to do whatever they think is best.  And who better than an elitist Hollywood celebrity to explain why the more than 300 million Americans constituting the lower classes are like maggots crawling across the landscape, and that they should be compelled to shut up and do as their betters tell them?

So let us be rid of Sean Penn and introduce ourselves to the “wisdom” of Tom Hanks.  Recently – in acquainting America with the 10 part HBO series on World War II he took part in – had this to say:

“Back in World War II,” he told Brinkley, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” In a separate interview, Hanks referred to the war in the Pacific as one of “racism and terror.”

Damn racist American bastards.  They were called “the greatest generation”; the generation that rose up from the ashes of the Great Depression to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever seen.  But you and Tom Hanks know the truth, don’t you: they were just a bunch of racists.  The vicious cheap-shot sneak attack at Pearl Harbor didn’t have anything to do with our going to war against Japan.  Heck, in the spirit of the modern “truthers” who claim that Bush bombed the World Trade Center, FDR probably sent in American planes painted to look like Japanese Zeroes.

Stupid unAmerican fool.  We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese “because they were different.”  We were forced to annihilate them because they were utterly fanatic and refused to surrender.  We were forced to annihilate them because they started a war of annihilation and wouldn’t stop.  Tom Hanks is too ignorant and too much an ideologue to consider the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March, or the Banzai charges, or the first suicide bombers known as the Kamikaze.  I’d like to see Tom Hanks take part in a movie about the monstrous and utterly despicable Unit 731.

If Tom Hanks wasn’t a complete moral idiot, he would simply realize that Japan attacked us without provocation with a vengeance, and the United States of America responded with a vengeance.  Just as they would have done had their attackers had white skin and round eyes.

And when Tom Hanks asks, “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”  he is not content to label the greatest generation as a bunch of racist warmongers; no, he seeks to do the same thing to our great warriors who are protecting us today.

Why are we fighting against Islamic jihadism?  Because they’re “different,” as Tom Hanks maintains?  How about because they attacked us in vicious act of war that left 3,000 innocent civilians murdered?  Maybe THAT had something to do with it?

Contrary to being “racists,” our soldiers today are operating with a level of restraint against an utterly despicable terrorist enemy – who hide among and prey upon their own civilian people – that is simply amazing to behold.  Our soldiers as a matter of routine are the most enthusiastic back-patting cheerleaders of the courage and toughness they are beginning to see in their Afghani and Iraqi counterparts.

Tom Hanks, like Sean Penn, see only ugliness in America and Americans, and only beauty in the totalitarian regimes of brutal dictators.

And that is, and always has been, the progressive way.