You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2014.

Question of the day:

Two lesbian pigs walk into a Christian bakery and demand that the baker bake a cake saying 2+2=5.

If Winston, the baker, refuses, should he be fined thousands of dollars for not submitting to the demand of the two lesbian pigs? Should the two lesbian women hold up four fingers of their hand and ask repeatedly how many fingers they are holding up? Should Winston be forced to close down his bakery is he refuses to answer 5? Should he be tortured until he replies 5?

In what kind of a society can two lesbian pigs use the power of the state to coerce a decent human being to state that 2+2=5, because  no one can refuse their demands, no matter how deformed, dysfunctional, or unethical?

================

Update: 1 March 2014

Another great hypothetical – a comment at FT where I have been banned:

BhamRedsFan12 hours ago

Under the logic used to lampoon this bill and others like it, if I am a baker and a member of the KKK walks in to my bakery asking me to bake a cake for his white supremacist rally, I cannot refuse to bake the cake on religious grounds. Regardless of my religious beliefs or personal preferences I, a private baker, am compelled to bake this man a cake. That’s an absurd result in any universe.

If Baker A will not bake you cake, that’s Baker A’s prerogative. There is no legitimate basis to compel Baker A to bake you a cake, regardless of the circumstances.

Yes, that is the point I have been making. I do not understand how anyone in their right mind can not see the refusal is based on objection to a perverted ideology – whether we are talking about racists, homosexuals, pedophiles, pornographers, etc. These are all ideologies and have nothing to do with color of skin, sex, or other immutable physical traits.

Second, if you can not reject to serve the individual based on religious grounds, you can not reject the service on any other grounds as well. I mean, where is the rationale to say that you can only reject service based on non-religious grounds? Freedom of conscience is thus effectively outlawed.

Freedom and democracy or normalization of homosexuality – choose one. Because the objective of sexuality pigs is to destroy your rights; there is no co-existence possible.

======================

Update March 3, 2014 – I don’t remember if I had written about this hypothetical before, but here it is. I think it underscores my point about the fact that these cases are about freedom of conscience, in broader terms, and specifically about freedom of religion, as a subset of what’s included under “conscience.”

Two liberal heterosexual idiots walk into a Christian bakery and order a cake for the farcical wedding of two people with a homosexual problem (a homosexual wedding). Does the baker have the right to refuse? If the baker refuses, what kind of discrimination is this? Discrimination against heterosexuals? Discrimination against liberal heterosexual pigs? Discrimination against homosexuals?

In case you didn’t notice, those were rhetorical questions. Isn’t it obvious that what is being objected to is the deformed liberal ideology on sexuality (namely, homosexuality)?

=================

See also: The Elane Photography case: “Homosexuality down your throats” dressed up as anti-discrimination

Advertisements

My brief reaction to Gov. Brewer’s cave-in to the homosexual/liberal power factions twisting her arm. Really, with Republicans like this, who needs liberals?

Here’s my comment:

Freedom of conscience means that no one has to support a rapist, or pornographer, or a sexual molester, or a swinger, or a person with a
homosexual problem, etc., when they are being “themselves” – that is, when they want to push their deformed sexuality agenda and coerce me to push it too.

This is what this bill would have protected – and which is what the 1st Amendment is written to protect. But liberals have thrown the 1st Amendment in the trash. When we have freedom of conscience, we have the choice not to provide services to destructive or immoral people of any kind. This is why the concept of sexual orientation discrimination is a fraud.

On the religious front, liberals also wrongly claim that Jesus commands people to push perverted sexuality agendas in society directly or indirectly, because some sexuality pig demands that they do.

This is where you separate the true Christians from the chaff. True Christians do not put themselves at the service of evil or immorality. They don’t endorse it or cave in to it simply because other people try to twist their arm. In other words, Christians don’t follow pigs of people on Earth. Either they set their own course, or they’ve forsaken their own religion – and especially Jesus.

This is just one more episode showing that many politicians are for sale and some sell out for nothing more than a couple of bucks.

Watch liberals throw the 1st Amendment down the toilet live this week in Arizona.

My prediction is that Brewer will cave in to the gay/liberal-stapo.

Now, there’s a lot to comment on this case/bill/situation. And I won’t have time. Here’s just some tips of the iceberg:

  • This is the future – that is, the future is here and it’s homosexuality shoved down your throats through legislation and informal actions destroying any right to freedom of conscience or religion.
  • The 1st Amendment has been buried. It exists only as a joke and as a reminder of a bygone era where it once was taken seriously and had any real meaning.
  • Predictably, all the CINOs jumped on the opportunity to kiss the gaystapo’s behind to get them some pink/center votes for upcoming elections (Gingrich, Romney, both Arizona senators: John McCain (R) and Jeff Flake (R) – with Republicans like these, who needs liberals?)
  • Predictably as well, and equally disgusting, were the usual gaystapo corporations trying to twist Brewer’s arm to veto the bill with all kinds of threats (Apple, Delta, the NFL – the NFL? Talk about the power of homosexuals to corrupt institutions). I do not want Apple deciding what is religious freedom in this country – and who can and cannot have it – or any other entity that thinks they can dictate law (and trample on the most fundamental freedom rights) simply because they have a pile of money.
  • I still don’t understand why people don’t grasp that refusing to serve or work with people who have a destructive sexuality agenda is a refusal to support a political ideology – a right which can never be banned and which can never be equated to refusing service to a person because they have dark skin. Conditioned people simply can’t think outside what they have been conditioned to think.
  • This has to be one of the best comments I’ve seen on any related articles:
    “First they came for the wedding cake bakers and I said nothing… “
    (I’ve been banned at Ace of Spades, btw).
    Read some of the comments on the thread above: the blog that has a deformed homosexual as a regular poster (Gabriel Malor) and whose owner (Ace) is a promoter of homosexuality and porn is now complaining about “radical” homosexuals! Ha! Ace’s (and his followers’) minds are so far up homosexuals’ behinds, they can’t see the irony.

 

 

Other somewhat old news include that I had received a complaint about copyright infringement from a certain “H.M. Stuart”  that contains fraudulent elements. (Too busy to blog about it in detail, here’s just a tiny part of the issue). “Stuart”  purportedly runs this community blog “Alexandria” site.

After receiving this complaint, I communicated to H.M. Stuart that he does not have my permission to post any of my writings on his site and that this is a clear violation of his stated site terms. Given that the only reason he  filed this complaint was to make a middle-school type  provocation because I questioned his lame views on sexuality and related issues, I think he must be quite frustrated to find out that he is too much of a looser to be bothered with seriously.

However, amusingly enough, this is the first time in my entire blogging experience that I have a shmuck insisting on publishing my own writings on his site against my will and without my consent, instead of the contrary, that is, the typical liberal that is adamant about  censoring what I have to say!

On the other hand, he filed this complaint to try to make me  delete a few of his retarded comments from my Censored blog, claiming it’s copyright infringement. Ha! Apparently the people who are most eager to lodge copyright infringement complaints are the ones who infringe any copyright notion and their own site terms the most!

You need to be quite a looser to go to the extent that he did to try to pick a fight over the Internet concerning a couple of comments. But that is life for a liberal looser.

I haven’t had time to deal with this, but will.

Watched the sixth episode of this season and practically fell asleep – more than a couple of times – and this in a show that lasts only 20 little minutes – and which I love!

Duck Dynasty needs to be more creative with their episode formula or they are going to go from happy, happy, happy to boring, boring, boring. Not only that, we know it’s mostly all scripted, but since it’s a nicely written script – hey, it’s entertainment. Recite that “reality,” baby, that’s television. However, when the show screams “these are all sadly repeated lines that were scripted and it’s the same old, same old and nothing other than that,” it does lose a lot of its charm.  I suppose this is a hard balance act (very scripted “reality” tied down to a simplistic and constrained formula) to keep after some time. On the other hand, it’s exactly what many sitcoms amount to.

But here’s the answer: they should start talking about some of the issues I discuss on this blog – or hire me as a topic consultant – guaranteed attention and ratings all around! 😉

Apparently no big news on the Farrow / Allen case. However, it appears Dylan Farrow’s accusation against Woody Allen revealed a prevalent myth in the populace: that adults (or adolescents for that matter) cannot molest or abuse a child only once or only a couple of times.

I saw several comments to articles on this cases stating this myth. That is certainly not true. It is merely a stereotype floating around that if an adult abuses a child once, they will do it hundreds of times. Sometime yes, sometimes no. Just like sometimes a person will rape only once and never again. Or murder or do any other crime or assault, whether it is of a sexual nature or not.

Once again we see how much the public stereotypes abusers to make them out to have certain profiles that are very different from their own. And you notice that this stereotype that the abuser must go on abusing multiple children and/or multiple times is one that makes people wrongly separate “normal” people from their notion of a “pedophile.” That is, it is a refusal to believe that people like them (who have an adult sexuality) can at one time or at certain times only molest or abuse children (or adolescents). Realizing this breaks down this simplistic and wishful separation between “normal” people and “pedophiles” that many people want to believe must always exist.

I have been too busy to write here, but just wanted to drop off some quick notes.

Another day, another banning: this time at “The Other McCain.”

I admire Robert McCain’s work very much – and he is a great example to other journalists concerning his writings related to deviant and predatory sexualities.   And I also like several of his regulars quite a bit. I had meant to do a summary of many of these child exploitation cases he has written about, to also keep a reference on my blog, but I haven’t yet gotten around to it. So much to write about, so little time!

However, it’s unfortunate that part of his followers are stuck seeing the world through the most narrow-minded 1950’s Cold War blinders and we also have some hysterical people regarding total denial of abuse in industrial farming, something I am also very critical of. Aside from McCain’s ultra-simplistic and twisted constructions of “patriarchy” and “feminism” that miss the mark as often as they hit it. And that’s not mentioning immigration issues.

But despite these drawbacks, McCain’s work on perverted sexualities and how much the LGBT and liberal populations do harm in the area of sexuality is truly an example.

I, however, wrote some comments that challenged the aforementioned ridiculous views on other issues and… I got banned.

Amusingly, more or less at the same time he banned me, he published a post called none other than:
Dissent Must Be Abolished! ( February 16, 2014)

where he criticized liberals for suppressing dissent, criticism, and debate. Not content with that, he wrote in another post: “Demonizing and marginalizing dissent is what liberals do routinely.”

Ah, as McCain well shows, not only liberals – alas, on his blog, dissent  must also be abolished.

Buried among 1500 comments on the NYT (and counting), there was this comment copied below. Very, very intriguing.

(Woody Allen Speaks Out By WOODY ALLEN FEB. 7, 2014).

Annie

New York City 8 hours ago

1. I saw the video – any reasonably sane person — trained or otherwise — would tell you that that little girl was not making it up. Not a chance.

2. If the files of the NYC child welfare agency could “talk” and ever came out it would be a very very bad day for Woody Allen.

3. Same goes for the polaroids Woody took of Soon-Yi. Very naked/nasty pictures of her spread eagled on a bed.

4. As Dylan, the grown-up, rightly says, the final “legal” word comes not from Connecticut but from NY. Doesn’t “grossly inappropriate” say anything here? The state of NY ruled he should have zero contact with his children – zero. Why did he stop fighting for them?

5. Re: Point 2. Ask Woody’s sister what she knows. Her names everywhere in the NYC files.

6. A jury of his peers found OJ Simpson not-guilty of murdering his wife. Legally speaking he, too, is innocent. Yeah, right.

=================

First, I had read a dismissal of the video because it had been “home-made” by Mia, i.e., there are edits. Unfortunately, we can only speculate inanely about it without seeing it. But this is a person who claims to have seen it. Has the video been destroyed as well?

But then, aside from the video that has been debated by other people, this is what struck me: “Ask Woody’s sister what she knows.

What does she know? And are we in Joe Paterno territory here?

Wow.

And after talking to Allen’s sister about “what she knows,” would Allen’s sister accept to take a polygraph by the police, I wonder?

Other new thoughts: speaking of polygraphs,  couldn’t we ask Soon-Yi to take a polygraph? Not only would I want to know more about her experience in her Farrow family, but I have a whole list of questions that I would want to ask her about how her incestuous relationship with Allen developed. From the very start of it. I think we’ll find muck, lots of it. At what age did Soon-Yi start having sex and with whom? Had she allowed men to take naked photographs of her before Allen? How old was she when Allen started taking naked photographs of her? Did Allen normally leave said photographs of her on their living room mantle for all visitors to see – or was it a special “gesture” by Allen targeting Mia’s visit?

And, another point, what this case also highlights is the pathetic functioning of these adoptions agencies. Walk into one of them with a bag of money, and no matter how dysfunctional, you can not only walk out with one kid, but with more than one.

====================

Added 10/Feb/2014

I had also thought the very same as this comment below on Moses’s statement, but never blogged about it. He sounds horrendously biased, having the kind of profile that defends abusers based on his own personal interests:

SydneyTexas 12 hours ago

“Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.””

IF this is true, Moses, as a family therapist, should be tossed from the profession.To speak for Dylan with such certainty and to assert that the presence of love and absence of fear are conclusive evidence of a lack of abuse is appalling. Many child victims believe the abuse to be normal; what is there to fear? Predators will do and say anything to get what they want. If they can get it willingly, all the better.

The more Woody talks, the less I believe him. And the court records paint a much different picture.

=======================

I’m not saying that Moses cannot dispute the abuse claim. It’s the rationale he gave for it that shows the man is an unconscionable professional, with no knowledge of sexual abuse dynamics. A disgrace to his profession and yet, aside from a comment here and there, has anyone really demanded any action against him for his attitudes and views?

That’s why the psychotherapy profession can hide within its midst so many charlatans and evil doers.

======================

ETA Feb. 12, 2014.

A commenter also noted this:

I read in the November 2013 Vanity Fair article that Dylan Farrow’s case file disappeared from the New York Child Welfare Authority

You can find the article here.

In New York in March 1993, Paul Williams, who had been honored as Caseworker of the Year in 1991, and who was handling Dylan’s case for the city’s Child Welfare Administration, was suspended after being suspected of leaking to the media. According to a New York Observer article at the time, Williams claimed his office had faced pressure from City Hall to drop the case—a charge denied by then Mayor David Dinkins. Williams, who spoke twice to Dylan, is said to have “absolutely” believed her.

Williams was eventually reinstated, in September 1993. Today, according to someone close to the matter, the case file is nowhere to be found, although it would ordinarily have been marked “indicated” to signify that it merited further attention—a potential red flag in allowing someone to adopt children.

This case stinks.

I also read some of the reviews for this book: Mia & Woody: Love and Betrayal by Kristine Groteke and Marjorie Rosen (May 1994)

It was written by one of the baby-sitters who was there. Can’t know if what she says is true, but it seems she provides a lot of information about the family.

From Booklist: “It’s Woody and Mia as seen through the eyes of their children’s baby-sitter. No, it’s not a segment of A Current Affair; in fact, it’s several notches above that. Still, the topic being what it is, readers will want answers to questions like, What is he, nuts? or What is she, nuts? Groteke actually delivers at least some of the goods we’ve all been waiting for. Here’s the background: just before the scandal broke, Groteke, a Connecticut neighbor of Farrow’s, came to spend the summer as a nanny. Over the next several years, she became both friend and confidante to Farrow; thus, while her manuscript was not vetted by the actress, it does tell her side of it. Groteke, however, tries to be fair to Allen. She does not presume to say whether he molested his adopted daughter, Dylan, but she does describe what happened on the day when the alleged abuse took place, and she also comments on Allen’s fawning devotion to Dylan (to the exclusion of his son, Satchel). The details of those horrific months when Farrow’s family was torn apart and relentless reporters dogged their every step make for fascinating reading. Groteke’s account of the custody hearing itself proves especially interesting, as does the appendix, which reprints Judge Wilk’s entire judgment, devastating in its opinion of Allen. There are surprises here, too. For instance, we learn that even after Farrow found the nude pictures of Soon-yi, she still continued to see Allen, have dinner with him, and speak constantly with him on the phone. When Groteke asks how Farrow could have stayed with him even before the Soon-yi affair, considering he verbally attacked her, wanted nothing to do with her children, and refused to marry her, Farrow talks about Allen’s brilliance and how superior she felt him to be. So maybe they were both nuts. Ilene Cooper”

Actually calling them “nuts” is a total cop-out, calling them “nuts” doesn’t hold them morally accountable for anything. Who cares if they were nuts? They were trash of people in many ways, with deeply warped ideas about sexuality and relationships, apparently some of which were criminal.

And the other thing is: the “Annie” who wrote the NYT comment speaks as if she has read the files. Not only that, she speaks in the present tense: “Her names everywhere in the NYC files.” Like if she had just read the files, you know, as if she has a copy. Maybe it’s just a matter of how she expressed herself. Or perhaps someone still has the files.

Vanity Fair, which is usually a shoddy liberal publication, catering to the worse of the glitter- and liber-atti agenda pushers, published an impressive list of 10 facts in the Woody Allen abuse case.

10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation By Maureen Orth

A must read.

Here’s the summary – with some comments:

1.   Mia never went to the police about the allegation of sexual abuse. [Why is this relevant? I mean, is she being accused of having gone to police as if that was a bad thing?]

2.   Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public. [“Inappropriate behavior” like what? Some answers can be found in the Judge’s decision.]

3.   Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. [Aha! One of my questions answered. I had searched for information on this polygraph but had found none. I also wondered about what questions he was asked – down to the very wording of each one. And here we find that he refused to take a polygraph by the police. Interesting. “Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team.” Suspicious to say the very least. Have the records of this arranged polygraph been “inadvertently” destroyed by the Allen team?]

4. Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees.  [One million in legal fees! Wow. And I’m sure that doesn’t even begin to cover the resources needed to bring an award winning film celebrity to justice! What exactly were all these lawsuits about? A book by  a thorough and honest investigative journalist is so very in order here.]

5. In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” [Vanity Fair has published the decision here.]

6.   Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day. On the day of the alleged assault, a babysitter of a friend told police and gave sworn testimony that Allen and Dylan went missing for 15 or 20 minutes, while she was at the house. Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements. These sworn accounts contradict Moses Farrow’s recollection of that day in People magazine. [A lot of seriously troubling testimony.]

7.   The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.

All the notes from the report were destroyed. Her confidentiality was then violated, and Allen held a news conference on the steps of Yale University to announce the results of the case. [What I find curious is: what happened to the first pediatrician that Mia talked to? “Her lawyer told her on August 5, 1992, to take the seven-year-old Dylan to a pediatrician.” Did Mia simply not search for another psychologist for Dylan to talk to? And her lawyer counseled her in what way here?]

8.   Allen changed his story about the attic where the abuse allegedly took place. First, Allen told investigators he had never been in the attic where the alleged abuse took place. After his hair was found on a painting in the attic, he admitted that he might have stuck his head in once or twice. A top investigator concluded that his account was not credible. [No memory of going to the attic? If it was just another room in the house, I could see that, but an attic is a pretty specific place that stands out in someone’s memory. See, it’s not that he didn’t simply remember going as in “I don’t remember if I did.” He first stated he had never been in the attic. When proof was found that he had been there, then he admits he “may have gone to the attic.” I wager that this question wasn’t in his arranged lie detector test.]

9.   The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.” Maco told me that he refused to put Dylan through an exhausting trial, and without her on the stand, he could not prosecute Allen. [A difficult question. That was his call, and it could have been perfectly honest, with her well-being in mind. Still, it raises many other questions about the bases for his claim.]

10.   I (Maureen Orth) am not a longtime friend of Mia Farrow’s, and I did not make any deal with her.
==============================

When this scandal broke out again, I was just thinking that if Dylan were not telling the truth, what a tragedy this would be for all other abuse victims.

Any time there is a mistake or lie in a high profile case, it sets back all other victims because it reinforces the desire in the public’s mind to believe the abuse never happened, which is always a very uncomfortable and distressing realization.

I had also refrained from commenting on it, because I have too much to do to go dig up all that has been written on the case in order to be well informed about it. And without loads of information, we can be so easily swayed one way or another.

Exhibit A just above. What a difference having information makes in analyzing a case. Yes, this is obvious, but that is exactly what we need: a trial where all this information could have been exposed in detail and debated. And if Allen refused and is refusing to take a police polygraph, plus all the information above, it looks like Dylan is not mistaken. However, the problem in this case is Mia.

Now here’s someone who is seriously warped about her personal relationships. I mean Woody Allen and Frank Sinatra? How repulsive. And I know nothing about this Previn guy (as a man), but was he in any way not repulsive like the other ones?

Look at this from the Judge’s report – page 3:

In 1984, Ms. Farrow expressed a desire to have a child with Mr. Allen. He resisted, fearing that a young child would reduce the time that they had available for each other. Only after Ms. Farrow promised that their child would live with her and that Mr. Allen need not be involved with the child’s care or upbringing, did he agree.

What.In.The.World? Farrow wanted to have a child with a disgusting man who hated children, and who was apparently quite emotionally warped towards women (in addition to the children), and who had no desire to have any children with her? (Let’s not even get into the question of getting married to then have chidlren – because obviously the concept of marriage is not on the radar of such warped people).

And Farrow wants the child after getting a guarantee from Allen that this child will have no father who wants it? A guarantee that Allen will not be a father to the child that Mia wants to have with him?

I mean that is seriously dysfunctional. That is patently warped.

Read pages 4, 5, and 6 about how sick Allen’s behavior becomes towards Dylan and the other kids. And then, sadly, the children become pawns in the wranglings that develop within the relationship between the two (Mia and Woody). Just like footballs being kicked around in this ugly dispute between the two. Just nasty.

None of that, however, is Dylan’s fault.

The entire report needs to be read. On pages 23, 24, information about the social workers and other doctors. The question remains – for me – why weren’t several child abuse specialists called by Mia to talk to Dylan? Even without a trial, she could have easily arranged that.

Even though polygraphs are not very reliable, I’d like to have all three key people in this case do a respective one – one who is not arranged by their friends and lawyer pals.

And, in any case, it’s a nice thing that a lot of attention is being brought to what a garbage of a man Woody Allen has been. He should not be given a pass simply because he is capable of making movies that our morally debauched bourgeoisie is so fond of.

Skimming some writings and comments on Rod Dreher (The American Conservative) and Volokh’s blogs recently yielded a head-to-head competition to see who can reach the greatest apex of hypocrisy. They were joined by alleged molester and confirmed incestuous pervert Woddy Allen this week.

First Volokh continues his hypocrisy about criticizing Putin for his sound anti “homosexuality propaganda” law (‘The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia’s anti-gay laws’ -February 3 at 3:31 pm). Not too long ago, but before I was banned at Volokh for attacking his liberal “down your throats with homosexuality” views, I had a long exchange about this very subject with one of Volokh’s most ardent pink trolls.

At least one notes that Volokh this time mentioned an European case of censorship regarding suppressing views that oppose normalizing homosexuality (Sweden).

However, I see no complaint from Volokh about France’s law that will severely punish anyone who expresses any opinion that contradicts the state’s imposed view that normalizes homosexuality – an imposition by state force and coercion.

Just in the last few months, Volokh has been incensed in his zeal over his homosexuality speech crusade on his blog:
Censorship of Pro-Gay Movies in Russia; L.A. City Councilman Urges Suspending “Sister City” Relationship with St. Petersburg; Ukrainian Bill Banning “Promotion of Homosexuality” Passes First Reading, with 289 Votes (out of 350 Present); Moscow City Court Upholds Ban on Gay Pride Parades; Ukrainian Legislators Proposing Ban on “Propaganda of Homosexuality”;

Any protests from him regarding the fact that France continues its disgusting government censorship of speech about homosexuality that counters Volokh’s own shoddy “homosexuality is normal” views?

Of course, not.

Not only this, Volokh systematically censored myself and other socially conservative commenters from his blog because we exposed how ignorant and cruddy his liberal views on sexuality were and are. To see a man who constantly censored others with whom he disagrees in a sphere of debate that he controlled then climb on his little soapbox and criticize Putin for analogous behavior is quite hypocritical. To see him blog away about Putin but keep silent about France is just a show of how biased he is. Volokh loves to censor people as much as the next Putin. The only difference is that Volokh’s sphere of censorship power is limited to his menial blog.

I think liberals the world over have shown social conservatives that their proclamations about respect for freedom of speech or for freedom of conscience/religion are nothing but very cheap talk. And Volokh, with his own behavior and blogging, has displayed he is quite good at the latter.

Moving on, but still related to the VC blog, I recently had the amusement of seeing something else unexpected there. Given how many shoddy liberal sycophants Volokh attracts, who spend most of their comment ink on brown-nosing Volokh and each other, I was amused to see someone step out of the brown-nosing lockstep.

One of the women who has perhaps most licked the Volokh latrine, ChrisTS, came out accusing Volokh of being a rape apologist, a call that was seconded by several others.(“The Hyped Campus Rape That Wasn’t” By Eugene Volokh on November 7, 2013 5:05 pm). That doesn’t happen every day at that noxious place.

It’s something we already knew, however: Volokh is an apologist for a plethora of harmful, destructive, and perverted attitudes and behaviors in the sphere of sexuality. But to see a woman who revels in licking his ideological toilet criticize him for one of his many cruddy views was unexpected. Given that ChrisTS shares with Volokh most of his remaining damaging views on sexuality, for some reason her criticism stopped there.

It is my guess that Rod Dreher must have been upset to see so much hypocrisy from Volokh that he just had to get into the fray. Like Putin and Volokh, Dreher also loves to censor critical viewpoints. No market place of ideas with either of these two hypocrites – as long as they control the space.

Dreher is a guy who prides himself in having normalized homosexuality, in its psychological and behavioral spheres, including homosexual civil unions, and, if I remember correctly, for homosexuals to manufacture children any way or to adopt them (although I’d have to check up on this one). So he was sputtering comments about how terrible it was for homosexuals to call their unions “marriage.” If only they would do all their perverted sexual thinking and behavior and call it “civil unions,” all would be OK in perverted Christianity Dreher-land.

On top of this, Dreher puts his foot down when it comes to labeling himself as an Orthodox Christian (with capitalized O and C, mind you!). A serious Christian, is he, you might ask? Well, not such much, unless I and many other sources are mistaken about what the Orthodox Church preaches. Here is one source:

The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexual acts has been expressed by synodicals, canons and patristic pronouncements from the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life. In them, the Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God’s ordinance and expressed in man’s experience as a law of nature. The Orthodox Church believes that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Below is Dreher’s position – follow the selected comments in the thread (Pushing The Pink Police State, January 24, 2014, 1:29 PM). Dreher appends his replies in brackets and italics at the end of other people’s comments. Then these people quote him back with the brackets (just so you don’t get confused as to who said what).

qasedede says: January 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm

This raises a good question for our host: If you’re fighting for true tolerance for religious traditionalist opponents of homosexuality, how much tolerance are you prepared to offer the other side? If the Arch-chairperson of the Grand High LGBT Conspiracy walked into your kitchen this afternoon and offered to draw up a permanent peace treaty, I have a sense of what you’d want for your side (broad legal immunity for religious people from anti-discrimination prohibitions, a high degree of social tolerance for people who think homosexuality is a sin, and so forth). But what concessions would you be prepared to offer the other side? It sounds like you’re willing to offer at least some opposition to sodomy laws… but anything else? The gays do want to stay out of jail, but they also want to protect their property, their livelihoods, their access to commerce, and the legal positions of their families. What can you offer them?

[NFR: We’ve been over this before. I would offer civil unions — legal marriage in all but name. — RD]

========================

Chris of Providence says: January 24, 2014 at 5:09 pm

I’m a married gay man. I’ve been reading this blog for a month. Here’s how I’m reading RD’s attitudes towards me:

– He likes and respects people like me, although he thinks our relationship is sinful.

– He will hide me and my husband in his basement when the Nigerians come to stone us to death.

– He thinks our marriage is invalid.

– He thinks we should pay more taxes than heterosexual couples.

– He thinks my spouse should not receive social security survivor benefits.

– He thinks my spouse should have to sell our house when I die because he cannot pay the estate taxes a heterosexual spouse would avoid.

– He thinks our children should be taken away from us.

I like and respect you too Rod, but if you can’t understand why the basic unfairness of your position causes people to take a very hard (and sometimes abusive) line against you. I can’t help you. You seem like a pretty empathic person. Try empathizing more.

[NFR: Why on earth do you think I believe your children should be taken from you? I do not. Besides, I have said over and over that I favor civil unions. I’m happy for you to avoid inheritance taxes and SS survivor benefits. — RD]

=========================

JohnE_o says: January 24, 2014 at 5:21 pm

[NFR: We’ve been over this before. I would offer civil unions — legal marriage in all but name. — RD]

If they are both the same in all but name, then what exactly are you fighting for?

=========================

jaybird says:

[NFR: We’ve been over this before. I would offer civil unions — legal marriage in all but name. — RD]

I know this is tangential to the main point of the thread, but I really, truly do not understand this logic. Are we really to believe that all of the prophesied social calamities that are to result from same-sex-”marriage” can be avoided or mitigated if we just don’t call it marriage? Because that seems to be what you’re arguing. And if that’s not what you’re arguing, then why do we hear all of this harping about how same-sex marriage will irreparably damage the social fabric, cause plunging fertility, will stop heterosexuals from marrying, yada, yada, yada? Why wouldn’t the same institution, re-badged as “civil unions” be just as disruptive and under-mining of supposed Judeo-Christian social norms?

[NFR: What I propose is a way to facilitate the inevitable while salvaging what can be saved of our conception of heterosexual marriage and its ideal, and all the protections pertaining to “marriage” as written in our laws. It may be futile. — RD]

====================

Now there’s a hypocrite. Obviously Dreher is not alone. Many “Christians” who have a perverted mind about sexuality have always behaved in a closeted way about their perversions,  and now they want legitimacy. And Dreher just loves sexual perversion in the form of homosexuality and bisexuality. One only needs to look at his behavior and writings.

If the Bible clearly states homosexuality is an abomination, the Drehers of the world will flippantly throw the Bible in the trash and forge ahead with their “normalize homosexuality” agenda, while claiming to be Christians – and in his case, of the “Orthodox” variety!

Well, it’s hard to say who is more hypocrite: the bishops who lied and covered up all kinds of homosexual pederasty crimes in the Catholic Church abuse scandal while standing as a symbol of holiness, that Catholic priest that was caught in a gay orgy/bar scandal published in an Italian magazine recently, or Dreher with his “I’m an Orthodox Christian, but my position is to endorse and support the normalization of perverted sexualities in society,” particularly what appears to be his favorite one: homosexuality.

Don’t think for a second that there is much difference between Dreher and the corrupt Catholic hierarchy. Dreher, with his “normalization of homosexuality” stance, clearly endorses the violence and harm that LGBTs have been doing in society, and he does this mostly by purposefully ignoring the subject and wanting complete silence on the topic. This is the reason I was banned from commenting on TAC.

Dreher wants to silence any talk about harm and violence as much as the Catholic Church, but Dreher wants this in relationship to all LGBTs in general, and especially if the harm and violence is in an adult sphere. Another characteristic he has in common with the current corrupt CC is that he wants sexually perverted people be very powerful in Churches. He won’t admit it, of course, but his plan is for society to have churches infested with corrupt gay mafias.

Lastly, in the thread that meandered into the marriage/civil union question, there was this comment, by a liberal who is  adamant about his homosexuality agenda:

jaybird says: January 24, 2014 at 8:48 pm

[NFR: What I propose is a way to facilitate the inevitable while salvaging what can be saved of our conception of heterosexual marriage and its ideal, and all the protections pertaining to “marriage” as written in our laws. It may be futile. — RD]

I really have no idea what “salvaging what can be saved of our conception of heterosexual marriage and its ideal” would mean in practice, or how allowing homosexuals the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples under another name would facilitate that… As much as I disagree with it, I think the M Young/Thursday stance makes more logical sense: “No gay marriage for you, no “civil union” nonsense either, and you’d better hope we don’t decide to start throwing gay people in jail again, just on principle”. Much more direct and to-the-point, anyway.

=====================

That is because Young and Thursday aren’t on the level of hypocrisy that Dreher, Volokh, and Woody Allen are.

Dreher had written: “Orthodoxy is about far more than religious experience; its theology is extraordinarily deep.”

Perhaps that is why Dreher must dump the Bible and its theology in the trash bin to serve his sexually perverted attitudes about homosexuality. It appears Orthodoxy is just a little too ethically challenging for him.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: