Click to bookmark this page!
- Contact Me -
Include your email address
Just in case you weren't sure...
Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com
An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by precision use of American military force
under George W. Bush:
million in just two years
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by anti-American Bush-bashing
terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
...The problem seems to
me to be the definition of "free speech".
Liberals define it as anything they want to say
or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends
where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun
for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a
"peace" march, send money to a terrorist
organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an
American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force....
Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat....
Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature....
Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.
Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Day by Day:
Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political
The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?
What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble
of figuring out what kind of idiot you
Because Bush is to blame... for
Sacred Cow Burgers
Satirical Political Beliefs
Communists for Kerry
Cooper's Protester Guide
Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.
When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)
Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism
How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan
Did We Botch The
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the
media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq
Pictures from Hate
Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate
Israel/general wacko rallies
Share your wish list with friends and family
Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones
Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping
The best right-wing news and commentary
GOP USA Commentary
Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news
Analysis with political and social commentary
The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion
News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs
The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek
Articles Previously Published at
- When Good Liberals Go
Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You
Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax
Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If
They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
Whining of Mass Distraction: How
To Discredit A President -
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
- Liberalism: Curable or
Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking
Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
Is Hamas Exempt from the War on
Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The
Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and
Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance,
Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On -
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering
Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame
Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified?
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On
It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical
Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to
Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To
Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder -
- The Meaning of Right - Why I
Supported the Iraq War -
- More Liberal "Rules" for
Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take
John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's
Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten
Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For
Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal
Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The
Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the
Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern
Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino
Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with
American Politics? - 03/04/04
Blogs to Browse
Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
My Arse From My Elbow
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Don't Fall for the Faux Foley Fury
In today's topsy-turvy world, perhaps the strangest thing is to see Democrats blasting Republicans for NOT gay-bashing. What is the world coming to?
Inexplicably, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is under attack for not preventing former Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) from contacting male pages. The Left are in their glory over this "scandal," throwing accusations of "cover-up" just weeks before a tight midterm election. The fact that no evidence of wrongdoing on Hastert's part has yet been produced, however, doesn't even slow the Democratic attacks.
It seems that a lot of people in DC knew that Foley was gay, and that he was attracted to young men. After all, the people of his district are entitled to send whatever representation they want to Congress, if they felt he got the job done for them. Political correctness prevented anyone from making a ruckus over his sexual orientation, until the Democrats suddenly discovered a sort of militant asceticism.
Hastert was informed in late 2005 that Foley had sent a page some "overly friendly" emails, and that the page's parents wanted him to stop... but didn't want a big deal made of it. The emails were a bit creepy, perhaps, but not overtly sexual. In one, Foley asked the page -- a Louisiana native whose home had survived Hurricane Katrina -- for his picture. Hastert (who states that he had not been aware of the picture request) and other Republican leaders quietly asked Foley to cease and desist, and Foley agreed. Crisis averted, problem solved... right?
Not in an election year. Amazing, isn't it, that the story broke when it was just too late for the Republican party to remove Foley's name from the ballot?
Out of nowhere, it seems, a series of extremely salacious instant messages appeared, in which Foley and others openly discussed explicitly sexual matters. Actually, it wasn't nowhere -- copies of the "friendly" emails were first sent to the FBI and the St. Petersburg Times by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group funded by the America-hating Leftist multi-billionaire George Soros. When neither the FBI nor the media saw anything actionable in the emails, they appeared on a newly-created web site that had almost no traffic. When ABC picked up the story at the insistence of Foley's opponent, the far more disturbing IMs suddenly made their appearance.
Foley immediately resigned when the story broke, in sharp contrast to Democrats who have been caught in scandals. Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA), for instance, actually slept with at least one male page. He turned his back on then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill (R-MA) in disrespect as he was being censured for his behavior, which earned him a standing ovation from fellow Democrats. Studds was re-elected five more times before he retired.
When Foley resigned, Democrats like Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- who expects to take Hastert's job after the upcoming elections -- immediately demanded that Hastert resign as well, and that the entire Republican leadership be investigated. They insist that Hastert knew of "inappropriate contacts" between Foley and "children," and did nothing -- in fact, many accused him of deliberately covering up for Foley, without a shred of evidence to back that accusation. Yet in the cutthroat world of Democratic smear campaigns, evidence is a four-letter word, and outrage trumps logic.
It's perfectly understandable that Conservatives and most Republicans would be outraged by Foley's grossly immoral -- even disgusting -- behavior. However, it's almost impossible to understand why the Left would be upset. How could those who champion "alternate lifestyles" and belittle those who dare judge others by religious or moral standards be dismayed by some dirty text messages? Whatever happened to all the champions of the "right to privacy" and the supporters of NAMBLA's (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) right to "free speech?" Where are those who were outraged by the Boy Scouts' refusal to allow gay Scoutmasters? In short, it's a calculated outrage manufactured for political purposes. Do they expect us to believe that they condemn Foley's actions, which were not, after all, even strictly illegal?
As far as the law goes, 16-year-old pages are over the age of consent in DC (and many states) -- thanks to Left-wing activists who want to drive the age of consent even lower. There is no law against sodomy -- again, thanks to Left-wing activists who have worked to "mainstream" alternate lifestyles, claiming that a "right to privacy" forbids the government from interfering in the bedroom activities of two consenting adults. Of course, instant messages and emails are not the same as sexual contact, so statutes against sodomy and age of consent laws wouldn't even apply unless it can be proved that Foley had actual sexual contact with pages. And -- again, thanks to the Left -- we know that oral sex doesn't count as sex, either.
What we see here is the difference between illegal and immoral behavior. Foley's actions were not strictly illegal, but were certainly stomach-churningly immoral -- but only to those who don't shy away from making moral judgments. In other words: what business do those on the Left have condemning Foley for doing whatever he wanted with whomever he wanted, as long as all involved were over the age of consent? Isn't that what the Left has been telling us all these years? Who are these new Puritans that attack Republicans for not denouncing Foley when they first learned of his sexual tendencies? It's all a political game designed to split the Republicans just a month before a crucial election. And, sadly, it seems to be working.
Which brings us back to Hastert. "No one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages that were revealed by ABC News last Friday," said House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Upon being informed of Foley's "overly friendly" -- but in no way sexual -- emails to a page, what should he have done? Censure Foley on the House floor for being a homosexual? Launch a major investigation into Foley's personal life, issuing a subpoena to every page with whom Foley had ever spoken, just in case Foley had done something illegal? A full-blown witch hunt is not the "proper" response to every questionable activity on Capitol Hill. Hastert cannot reasonably be held to account for Foley's actions.
With this year's election hanging in the balance, the Democrats will use any and every dirty campaign tactic to regain power. One can only hope that the voters will get sick of the underhanded trickery, and decide to send the Democrats a message. More than likely, though, the negative campaigns will suppress the so-called "values voters" -- mostly social Conservatives and religious Republicans -- by causing them to stay away from the polls in disgust. If that happens, expect to see more dirty campaigning in the future... as rewarding bad behavior only results in more bad behavior.
Posted at Thursday, October 05, 2006 by CavalierX
October 6, 2006 10:21 AM PDT
Here are some of my thoughts on the pickle the R's now have with the Foley mess... I think it needs to go into the strategy for defense of the Republican leadership.
WHY HOMOSEXUAL CONGRESSMEN (Public Figures who are also predators) - Get by For so Long:
I think one of the questions not brought out by anyone (that I have seen) is the roll played by "socially acceptable" ways of confronting homosexuals who may have predatory tendencies. I am thinking most heterosexuals are confused about exactly HOW to confront issues involving homesexuality in society. When most heterosexuals learn of a person's homosexuality, they are now "tuned by acceptable behavior norms" to AVOID making the person's orientation an issue. It is avoided at all costs because of laws prohibiting harrassment of persons of color, race, religion, orientation, age, sex, nationality, regionality, physical challenge, height, weight, style of dress, financial status, educational status, or profession (among other things). So - people who are "thought to be" homosexual - are given a wide berth of "polite" avoidance in any discussion (with ANYONE) of the person's "orientation". This allows the homosexual PREDATOR a wide margin of error in their activity until wide public knowledge of their orientation is expressed. Thus, some congressmen who are homosexual and known to be so are more acceptable to their constituents. If sexual misbehaviour occurs, it will be obvious. When such a pubic figure is secretly homosexual (like McGreevy) the public and even their peers in government are unable to effectively identify misbehavior until it is too late. "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" may work in some cases, but "Not Telling" reduces oversight. It probably should be criminal for an elected official to represent his constituency under any false pretenses of sexual orientation. Once "outed" there should be criminal charges for misrepresentation because while "in the closet" the public is isolated from potential misbehaviour by the social rules of conduct that are effectively a "gag order". A heterosexual who misbehaves will be more readily exposed because the rules SUPPORT the reporting and discussion of sexual harrassment. A closet homosexual who misbehaves is using the social stealth and cloaking tools provided by rules supporting suppression of discussion about orienteation.
Vic Campbell www.me3tv.com www.buzzcreek.com
October 16, 2006 09:50 PM PDT
Interesting how it is all politics as always.
Why vote at all???
That's what the minunes will be saying to themselves.
October 16, 2006 10:05 PM PDT
One more thing, this is NOT a polical issure, but a moral one....... a Page in an intern............bring back any memories??????
October 16, 2006 10:08 PM PDT
Preditors are not gay or straight, they are sick individuals that pray on the week and the young.
Lets call a spade a spade shall we?
October 17, 2006 06:31 AM PDT
That's the point, Maureen. It's perfectly understandable why those on the Right are disgusted with Foley -- who, by the way, resigned immediately. My question is why those on the Left, who normally champion homosexual relationships and defend those who desire sex with children, are full of "outrage" over Foley's emails and IMs -- not even actual sex -- with a young man over the age of consent.