The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes

Print Email

Text Size

Political Hay

Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes

By Jeffrey Lord on 10.9.09 @ 6:09AM

Will Pelosi, Jennings backers in media apologize to ousted GOP Congressman?

(Page 3 of 5)

House Resolution

Whereas on September 29, 2006, Republican Congressman Mark Adam Foley of the 16th District of Florida tendered his resignation as a Member of the House of Representatives in response to the revelation by ABC News that Congressman Foley had sent repeated e-mails and text messages of a sexually explicit nature to male House pages.

Whereas Congressman Foley was charged with inappropriate sexual communications with House pages 16-years of age and older, the same age as the boy at the center of the Kevin Jennings scandal.

Whereas the legal age of consent for sexual activity in the District of Columbia is 16 years of age.

Whereas no indictment much less conviction of former Congressman Foley was ever obtained by any prosecutor anywhere.

Whereas then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement in October of 2006 during a congressional election calling Mr. Foley’s behavior “abhorrent” and said his behavior was a violation of the House’s duty to “protect the children.”

Whereas the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee engaged in gay-bashing by accusing Mr. Foley of “sex crimes,” a flagrant display of anti-gay bigotry.

Whereas the liberal media gay bashed Mr. Foley for his conduct repeatedly.

Whereas these examples of anti-gay bigotry include:

* Media Matters, an active participant in one of the worst anti-gay witch hunts in American history, posted a story from the Los Angeles Times to highlight that a “psychiatry expert” confirmed Foley’s actions “do in fact raise a red flag.” Media Matters not only impugned Foley in doing so but allowed this posting to suggest that sexual contact between a 16-year old and an older man, which is legal in the District of Columbia, was cause for the attention of “experts in psychiatry and sexual misconduct.”

* MSNBC’S Keith Olbermann saying on October 20, 2006 that Foley’s actions with 16 year old boys were “giving all of us a kind of sick feeling.” And that Congress needed to “protect the pages” from gay men exhibiting the behavior of Mr. Foley. Olbermann was joined in his disgust by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who labeled Mr. Foley’s lust for 16-year old boys, as the new face of pathetic, closeted, American lechery” and asked over at the Huffington Post, with obvious glee, “is he ultimately going to jail?” Ms. Maddow, it should be noted, makes no secret that she herself is gay.

* CBS Anchor Katie Couric described Foley’s private sexual behavior as “tawdry.”

* Boston Globe liberal columnist Ellen Goodman disdainfully saying: “Maybe nobody knows what to think about solving the problem of Iraq, but they know what to think about the Florida congressman instant-messaging a teenage page: ‘how’s my favorite young stud doing?”’

* ABC, CBS and NBC, networks which collectively ran over 150 stories in the first 13 days after Foley’s announcement, all saying or implying Foley had done something wrong and that because what he did was wrong Republicans were in danger of losing the congressional elections. ABC referred to Foley’s e-mails as “X-rated.”

* The New York Times, which insisted in a December 9, 2006 editorial that Mr. Foley’s behavior as a gay man with 16-year-old boys was “wildly inappropriate, sexually predatory behavior.”

Page: < 1 23 4 5 >

topics:
Keith Jennings, Mark Foley

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (267) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Melvin| 10.9.09 @ 6:28AM

We shouldn't be surprised at this, by nature the Democrat ideology is perverse in-itself, so therefore perverse actions are considered mainstream.
So this is why Democrats are not upset at Jennings actions advising a 15 year old boy that when he gets buggered by a pedophile that he should wear a condom.
Then society wonders why kids minds are the way they are.

Alan Brooks| 10.9.09 @ 7:32PM

Pure democracy itself promotes libertinism:
the opiate of the masses is sex :-)

victor| 10.10.09 @ 12:24AM

Actually liberals and dems have been smoking Hopium as of late.

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 5:24PM

the writer of the comment below, J. Baumeister, is a paragon of moral relativism. Imagine if you were to give advice to a relative of Baumeister before he or she had reached their majority. So Pat Buchanan is more and more shown to be correct; the liberal-- and libertarian perhaps-- double standard is the 8th wonder of the world:

"Third, Jennings wasn't making sexual advances, he was stunned and struggling with how to give appropriate advice to a gay teen. His advice was first and foremost directed towards the teen's safety and health. We can debate about what the best possible advice might be, but living in the shadow of the AIDS epidemic, I do not blame Mr. Jennings one iota for wanting to protect the student from that with some pragmatic advice.

Fourth, twenty years ago (and even today with some families) the concept of a teen coming out was fraught with a lot of fear and uncertainty. How would his parents react? Would the other kids at school beat him up a lot? Could he (the teen) handle the emotional battle of being out of the closet in a potentially hostile environment? Coming out is not a decision any gay man makes lightly today, much less twenty years ago. For Mr. Jennings (still in the closet himself) to out this student when no harm had occurred would be to take the decision to come out away from the student.

You should be able to recognize that the Foley episodes and this one are very different. Especially given Foley was clearly culpable, where Jennings--at worst--merely gave bad advice."

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 5:52PM

the breathtaking hypocrisy, not the advice Jennings gave, is what concerns me. If Baumeister (or some other gay, libertarian, or liberal, etc) overheard you giving Dr. Ruth-type advice to his 15 or 16 year old child, cousin, niece, nephew,
he would say "get the hell away from my kin, you old perv! give sex-advice to your #@&* family!"
In 1999, I realized what hypocrites so many lib/gays can be: after the Matthew Shepard murder I called a radio show and said "why are my gay friends pro-capital punishment all of a sudden?"
An irate guy called up 20 minutes later to exclaim, "You tell that guy Alan we gays are no pushovers!"

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:03PM

It's generally considered polite to append your faulty logic to the comment you intend to rebut, instead of to a comment several away.

Also, you seem fairly comfortable stereotyping those you disagree with ("gay, libertarian or liberal, etc") which is of course your right under the First Amendment. But blanket statements and judgements of those you disagree with provide no real substance to your arguments. Gays are bad because you say so. Liberals are bad because you say so. I'm guilty of moral relativism because you say so.

Well bravo sir! Way to put yourself up as the moral judge of the commenting universe.

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 6:09PM

This is the Grand Canyon sized, as the author correctly described it, secret illiberal view:

Let's stop being so judgmental. We have no right to judge others, except those we can't stand.
Larry Craig is someone I don't approve of, that queer-- not that it's wrong to be queer, but Craig just rubs my fur the wrong way, in a manner of speaking of course. Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course. But Craig deserved the citation! He did the Tinker Bell Two Step in a public lavatory, and that's silly.
So what if we have differences? I accept you, just as long as you don't look sideways at me when I lecture you.
I will defend to your death the right for you to say anything that I agree with.
You rightwing flyover resident!A Who in the Hell do you think you're dealing with? My attorney paid twice as much to go to law school as your punk lawyer did.

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 6:33PM

here is Baumeister's spin:
"We want to and do support you in your right to believe whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't discriminate against those you disagree with."
Again, this is my translation:
"So what if we have differences? I accept you, just as long as you don't look sideways at me when I lecture you.I will defend to your death the right for you to say anything that I agree with."

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:07PM

Actually sir, your translation is slightly flawed. You may look sideways at whomever you wish, and may lecture whomever you wish (isn't spectator.org just one giant lecture?) at any time you wish. And I will defend to my death your right to say anything at all.

I served in the Army. I respect our Constitution. But unlike you, I believe that freedom of speech works both ways. You can whine all you want, but your free speech does have a consequence: the right to disagree with you is freely given to any within earshot the moment you open your mouth.

Mr. Nock| 10.9.09 @ 7:24AM

The Republican Party is such a disgrace compared to what it used to be. Apparatchiks writing for a pittance or for fame but "True Believers" every one of them. Have a wonderful morning Jeffrey. I'm sure you're squeaming with anger you're so disgusted with the news that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Compared to that President who preceded him, a war mongering spendaholic incompetent who wholly and fully represented his True Believer followers, President Obama deserves the prize fully. But as an old anti-war Republican (a species of whom there are only a remnant left) who is now a Democrat because of necessity as the only alternative is fascism or remaining an aloof spectator, you seem to be keeping the nasty party alive. Keep up the good work at helping your opponents.

zman| 10.9.09 @ 9:47AM

Typical hyperventilating liberal schmuck; when you've lost the argument and cannot counter with salient facts, you resort to ad hominum. Loser.

Son Of Sam | 10.9.09 @ 10:08AM

Nock's not a "liberal". He's an ObamaNazi. He cannot see his own blatant hypocrisy, precisely because he's so goddammed full of himself. As for the TelePrompter In Chief somehow "deserving" the Nobel Prize, I say point out one damned thing he's actually DONE to make peace a reality. And no, making fluff speeches at the U.N. does not count as an action.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com

Rob| 10.9.09 @ 10:14AM

When was it that you liked the Republican party? When Bush 41 beat back Saddam? When Reagan pushed Communism out of South and Central America and won the Cold War? When Nixon fought and ended the Democrats' Viet Nam? When Eisenhower fought the Korean War? When Lincoln fought and won the Civil War? Even for a Democrat, you’re stunningly ineloquent. "Old anti-war Republican"? Republicans are the only ones who understand war enough to respect, fear, and prevent it whenever necessary. And what's any of this got to do with the Left's hypocrisy in failing to stand on principle and against the violation of a high-school boy? I hope people like you keep voting Democrat. Natural selection will see to it that the Democrat party goes the way of the dinosaur.

Ryan| 10.9.09 @ 10:30AM

So...what about the article, Mr. Nock? Is there anything factually wrong or out of context?

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 6:26PM

No, there isn't. And btw, coming from such a radic-lib family, I never would have become conservative if the liberal double standard hadn't become so apparent.
For hypocrisy to be efficacious it must not be publicly known, it must be kept in the...
closet.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 3:28PM

Funny, I would have thought it was your propensity towards self-righteous and condemnatory rants that propelled you towards the extreme right-wing.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:09PM

The out of context bit is that what Mr. Foley did was sexual harassment of someone in his employ, AT BEST. What Mr. Jennings did was give bad advice to a 16-year old, AT WORST.

victor| 10.13.09 @ 12:14AM

Jennings in 2000 told a GLSEN conference that Brewster told him he “’met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old,
In his own words! He knew of a minor having illegal sex with a older man.
Deal with it.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 1:38PM

Oh, and you were at this GLSEN conference? You have audio of Jennings statements from it?

Brewster's statement refuting your claims, plus a photo of his driver's license are here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 11:12AM

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good. If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his
life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. If a conservative doesn't believe in God he doesn't go to church. If a liberal doesn't believe in God he wants God banned from everything and everywhere.

It sure must be nice to be a liberal. Its your way or the highway. Oh yeah, the last real conservative to receive the Nobel Peace Prize was Teddy Roosevelt, that should tell us something about liberal leanings of the committee.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 2:06PM

It sure must be nice to stereotype everyone who disagrees with you.

Sounds like if someone like Mr. Nock, who describes himself as "as an old anti-war Republican" dares to show up and speak out, you rush to judge and label and bash him, and whine when he dares to criticize.

And for your information, we "liberal" homos don't demand legislated respect. I don't even want your respect, what little you're capable of giving to anyone you disagree with anyways. What we demand is equal treatment under the law, which is very different from demanding your respect.

Your side, on the other hand, demands that we give up our values and our way of life and be forced by law to respect your values over any others. That's what denying us marriage is all about. That's what reserving the right to fire us, not for misconduct, but simply because we're gay or lesbian, is all about. That's what forcing us back into the closet is all about.

We want to and do support you in your right to believe whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't discriminate against those you disagree with.

Nick| 10.9.09 @ 6:47PM

Mr. Baumeister,

You must live in an alternate universe. Because here on planet Earth, homos have never been able to get married. Even the Romans, as debauched as they were, never allowed an equivalence between a married couple and two people of the same gender.

Marriage, by definition, is a vow between a man and woman to raise children, exclusive of others. It can never be between two people of the same gender.

Just as a male can never change his gender. Calling him a woman doesn't make him one. He will always be a man, it is in his DNA.

Concerning employment, if I start a business, risking my money, I can fire anybody I want for whatever reason I want. Don't like it? Start your own business.

So, yes, get back in the closet. And don't let the door hit you in the....well, you know.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:28PM

Nick,

Several US states currently recognize marriage between persons of the same sex.

Past cultures, including the Romans and Native Americans to name a couple, have recognized same-sex marriages on an equal footing to opposite-sex marriages. Even the Romans. As debauched as they were. Until Constantine decreed it illegal.

Marriage, by definition, used to be a property contract whereby one man purchased a woman (sometimes more than one, if he could afford them) from her parents with a dowry, usually of cattle or land. It used to mean that woman and children were property of man. It used to be limited to members of the same race, the same religion, and at times even of the same family if you truly believe Adam & Eve were the first humans... Concepts of marriage and other social structures rarely remain static over time, and I think most women today appreciate not being treated as property, dont' you?

As far as your comments about transsexual/intersexed people go, I'm not even going to try to cure your ignorance in that respect. If you won't read the science on that, there's no way I can realistically hope you'll recognize reason when you see it.

Concerning employment, sure feel free to fire all the homos you want, just so long as you give up your right to protection in job discrimination for your choice in religion or politics. Oh wait, did you not know that your political or religous preference is protected under current law? Hardly surprising, since religious conservatives make up the vast majority of people fined under current anti-discrimination laws covering political and religious discrimination. We liberals may not like you Nick, but we know and respect the law.

Nick| 10.12.09 @ 7:59PM

You should get your money back from whatever university taught you history. Or was it wiki?Jupiter may have liked to rape little boys, but he never legally married them. Nor did any Roman.

Again, you (and these states) can call it "marriage" if you want, it still doesn't make it so. It is simply a perversion of marriage. And it is wrong.

And I believe I wrote that I can fire someone for ANY reason I want, didn't I? I actually meant it. So no need to throw up straw men to knock down, so you can feel clever. You liberals don't respect the law, you respect laws that are unconstitutional.

I will pray for you to overcome your affliction.
God Bless.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 8:05PM

It is you, sir, who need to re-examine history, for the version you've been educated with has apparently been highly edited. I'll provide you with some cited examples:

Same-sex marriage in Ancient Greece: Aristotle, Politics: 2.96-2.97 - Philolaus and Dioclese maintained a household together and were buried side-by-side. They are far from the only example of a non-pederastic same-sex couple in Greek literature. There are many more. Enough so that Romans later used the word "graeculus" (lit. A little Greek) to mean "feminine" in a derogatory manner usually applied to certain males.

Speaking of the Romans, I give you Emperors Nero and Elagabalus, both of whom married men in very public and lavish ceremonies. Elagabalus' same-sex wedding apparently received the approval of the public. Admittedly, neither man is to be lauded as a hero if Herodotus and other historical accounts are to be believed, but you denied the historical occurrence and here is your evidence to the contrary.

Other Roman historians recounting same-sex marriages include Cicero and Martial. Juvenal himself even claims to have attended some such ceremonies. All three have been translated into English multiple times and their texts are widely available.

A somewhat controversial view promoted by historian John Boswell is that Saints Sergius and Bacchus were lovers. His thesis is supported by religous iconography from the time that depicts the two paired in a manner reserved for depictions of weddings and wedded couples. It is also supported by the use of a Greek word that indicates lovers in the oldest document describing the two men. Lest you jump to the idea that Boswell is some crackpot, he was the Chairman of Yale's history department and has done much research on this topic, including books on the history of same-sex marriage and the early Christian church.

There were even ancient rites and liturgies for the union of two men or two women. The Vatican's own extensive archive include records of 13 same-sex marriages performed in 1578 at the pope's own St. John Lateran in Rome.

These are but a few examples. You are entitled to your own set of opinions about the morality of same-sex marriage, but not to your own set of facts, sir. History stands in direct opposition to what you (and others) claim when you say that no society has ever recognized same-sex marriage. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one's ever done it.

Nick| 10.14.09 @ 2:41PM

So, you are a wiki-scholar, huh? I guess you can't get your money back from them.

Show me the Roman law that allowed people of the same gender to have the same rights as a married couple. Not a bunch of pro-homo propaganda. Having a ceremony is not the same as putting it into law.

Believing everything you read on the internet is not the same as having facts. In fact, it is rather simpleminded. If you are this gullible, may I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn?

I admitted that the Romans were debauched. So, too, were the Greeks. I never claimed they had anti-sodomy laws like Christian nations do/did or banned homos from society. Their tolerance of perversion is what led to both of their downfalls.

By the way, if Constantine "decreed it illegal", how could the Vatican have a liturgy for it?

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 8:06PM

As for the part about you firing someone for any reason you want, your comments are fairly ignorant of legal realities in this country. A person cannot be fired for "any reason." In fact, there are several reasons for which you cannot fire a person. Being black is one of them. Being Christian is another. Being a Republican or a Democrat is yet another. I didn't throw up a straw man, sir. If you want to fire a black Christian Republican, you can. Just not for being who they are. Just like I couldn't fire a white Jewish Democrat for being any of those three things. You cannot, in this country, legally fire someone for "any reason."

Nick| 10.14.09 @ 3:28PM

As every right thinking person knows, everything that is "legal" is not necessarily moral.

In a free society, like America used to be, a person who owned a business could fire anyone for any reason, whether it was morally right or not. It was not for society to decide if his reason was right or not. At least not at the federal level. At the state level it was debatable.

This is called freedom. Something homos don't seem to be able to comprehend. Mostly because they falsely equate licentiousness with liberty.

Same goes for so-called "hate crimes" laws. Motive and intent are elements of a crime, not a crime in themselves.

When someone is charged with a murder, the first thing asked is what was his intent. Accidents, recklessness, and crimes of passion are treated differently than premeditated murder.

If the intent was to kill, the motive has to be established. It makes no difference what the motive was, it is still murder in the first degree.

If it wasn't premeditated, but a crime of passion, what motivated the passion has no bearing on the intent. If it was an accident, there was no intent to kill, and no motive to establish.

If one person was killed because they were a homo, is that worse than someone who is killed in a robbery? They are both evil. If the robber didn't intend to kill the victim (say he struggled for the victim's gun), but a guy goes out intending to kill a homo, the latter is worse.

Conversely, an armed robber who kills a store clerk so there aren't any witnesses, is worse than someone who gets into a fight with, and kills, a homo.

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 10:28PM

Well looky thar! Yet another pompous flaming Liberal claiming he can "CURE" us!

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 8:08PM

I don't recall ever once claiming I could "cure" you. I don't even recall implying that you need curing. Please quote me which sentence gave you those impressions so I can clarify for you the point which you've so clearly missed.

victor| 10.10.09 @ 12:32AM

Dear Johanna,
Of course you legislate perversion. Look what's in the so-called "hate crimes" bill that pelosi and reid are ramming through so that that Man in the White House can sign it.
Pedophilia and dozens of other perversion are now going to be legal and acceptable and we who choose to be moral will be persecuted if we object to you going out with teenage boys.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:32PM

I actually don't smoke, but thank you for the considerate offer to share your weed. You are high, aren't you?

Nowhere in the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes bill has the House repealed the ban on pedophilia and "dozens of other perversions." Those acts that are currently illegal (for very good reason!) will remain that way. And it's quite impolite to imply that I'd want to go out with teenage boys. I'm as repulsed by that thought as you'd be, but of course you buy into the conservative hogwash that all us fags are rapists and molesters, dont' you? That's really why any attempt to protect us has to be stopped with cries of "think of the chilluns!" isn't it?

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 10:31PM

Wait. you called yourself a fag. Does that mean we can too? Or do we punished for that?
No, the punishment, or the acceptance will be from God. Lotsa luck.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 8:09PM

Yeah. See you in Heaven. I assume I'll recognize you because you'll be the one with the surprised look on your face.

victor| 10.13.09 @ 12:20AM

Why isn't the Bill named after Jesse Dirkhising?
he was a TRUE VICTIM.
He was CHILD and was brutally raped and murdered by two homicidal homo sexuals who should have dispatched on the spot.
Matthew Sheppherd was killed in a drug deal that went wrong.
That story went unreported because the two goons were homosexual psychopaths.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 8:56PM

The bill wasn't named after Jesse because it was a hate crimes bill. Jesse wasn't attacked, tortured, beaten, and killed because of his orientation, color, religious beliefs, or ethnicity.

Jesse was raped and murdered. It was indeed tragic. His killers were psychotic men who happened to be gay. Far too many children are victims of brutal rapes like Jesse. (Mostly at the hands of straight men, or so the statistics say.) But Jesse's death was not a hate crime, and to name the bill after him would serve no useful purpose and would misrepresent the intent of the bill. And his death did not go "unreported" or you wouldn't have heard of it. It did get less media attention than the Shepard case, but you've got to provide proof before I'll accept that it was because "the two goons were homosexual psychopaths."

Hate crimes are not crimes committed against a gay person. They are crimes committed against a person BECAUSE of the suspect's bias against persons who are perceived to be or are in fact gay. See the difference?

fedupinflorida| 10.9.09 @ 12:30PM

Satiago| 10.9.09 @ 12:53PM

My very liberal massachusetts Congressman said this in his latest newsletter:

"One of my priorities as a conferee was to protect the addition of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Senate version of the legislation. The House voted in favor of hate crimes prevention earlier this year, but the Senate had been unable to move that bill until now when Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) successfully offered it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization. Republicans have, by and large, sought to strip this language from the bill in an effort that would have blocked this groundbreaking achievement that has been years in the making. I am proud that we were able to retain the Senate amendment and finally send GLBT-inclusive hate crimes legislation to the President for his signature"

I will suggest to him that he add to this : The Jeffrey Curley North American Man/Boy Love Associaton Hate Crimes Prevention Act" in honor of 10 year old Jeffrey Curley who brutally murdered by two homosexual pervert NAMBLA members.

CopyKatnj| 10.9.09 @ 8:25PM

Thank you Santiago for reminding me of this tragic case. I had never heard of NAMBLA prior to reading about this murder years ago. I agree with your proposal.

victor| 10.10.09 @ 12:36AM

Ask him when will he remember Jesse Dirkhising who was brutally raped, tortured and murdered by two homicidal homo sexuals on September 26, 1999, but was not reported because he wasn't the correct orientation and his murderers were homo sexual.

victor| 10.10.09 @ 12:36AM

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 3:45PM

Matthew Shephard was targeted by two violent individuals because of their intolerance of gay people. We currently DO NOT have laws that discourage this variety of violent terror.

Jeffrey Curley (Jesse Dirkhising, too) was targeted by two violent individuals because of their twisted urge to rape a kid. We currently DO have laws that discourage this variety of violent terror.

See the difference?

What happened to Jeffrey and Jesse was tragic beyond belief. No parents should have to suffer surviving their child and no child should die under such horrid, torturous circumstances. As a society, we failed to protect those kids, but the laws were there nonetheless to discourage that sort of crime.

What happened to Matthew Shephard and the hundreds of others since was also tragic beyond belief. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don't just stop with the immediate victims. When a community is targeted with acts of terror, it affects the whole community. LGBT people currently have no laws that protect us in this way.

Hate crimes laws, until this bill is signed, currently cover religion, gender, race, ethnicity and a few other characteristics. Why not share the protection of these laws with LGBT people?

victor| 10.13.09 @ 12:38AM

Explain to me the fixation and obsession with Mathhew Shepherd and the virtual blackout of Jesse Dirkhising?
I'll save you the trouble, the perps were homosexuals and Jesse was not.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 8:48PM

Matthew was killed because he was gay. We know that because his killers said so. We also know it because their accomplice and people who knew them witnessed previous expressions of violent anti-gay bias from the two. Also, drug deals or robberies gone wrong don't end up with the victim pistol-whipped, beaten, tortured, tied to a barb-wire fence and left to die.

If you have actual proof beyond your own insistence that Jesse Dirkhising received less attention because "the perps were homosexuals and Jesse was not" I'd encourage you to share it here.

Otherwise you're merely providing speculation backed up with supposition to counter the facts I've already stated. While your fear-fueled accusations might fly with some, I prefer my opinions be based in fact, not emotion.

Joe Wilson| 10.13.09 @ 4:34AM

You lie!

Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 2:54PM

Nope, it’s the opposite side that’s stereotyped as a hick, hayseed, tobacco spitting redneck. I couldn’t really care if a person went out and married a tree with a knothole in it and named the tree Lucy. As far as on the job I’ve never advocated force resignation of a homosexual. Do your job, and leave your sexual life or exploitations at home regardless of your orientation. Under labor law firing a homosexual is illegal. Don’t screw up the production line, get fired, and then claim it was because of sexual orientation. Keep your values and your respect as at the end of the day you’re the only one who has to look at yourself in the mirror. Same applies to me. (And I sleep like a baby in momma's arms.)

Stephanie| 10.9.09 @ 4:07PM

Blame Bush Blame Bush. You libs don't have a solid argument for ANYTHING! Hypocrits and liars every last one of you. And Yeah, I think Obama getting the Peace Prize was right on the money. He is in the same linup with Al Gore the Bore, Arafat and that peanut farmer that disgraced us before Regean came in to clean up the mess.
Why don't you move on over to the Huff Post.
It's more your style.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:35PM

Uh, no one is blaming Bush for either Mr. Foley's indiscretions or for the persecution of Mr. Jennings.

And have you ever seen the comments on HuffPo? Our postings here don't even begin to compare to the trash that conservative "guests" there throw out...

Joe Wilson| 10.13.09 @ 4:35AM

You lie, you child molestor!

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 8:59PM

You do know that you've just committed libel, right?

Alan Brooks| 10.9.09 @ 7:35PM

Nock is too convoluted a theorist for his own good.
Read what Nock wrote again; he could be a TA for Ward Churchill.

Flee| 10.10.09 @ 2:35AM

Bush was incompetent? If so, why does Obama continue so many of his policies? Most conservatives did not support President Bush's spending progams and that is why he was a disappointment to many of us. He did cut taxes and defend the country, but he was simply too good at heart and increased spending. The only prize Obama deserves is the next one he gets when he opens a box of Cracker Jack.

Alan Brooks| 10.11.09 @ 4:11AM

... and which fascism-- there are many species of fascism, as there are species of Communism-- is Nock referring to below? Islamo-fascism? Liberal fascism? And aren't all spectators aloof? (that's why they are called spectators):

"But as an old anti-war Republican (a species of whom there are only a remnant left) who is now a Democrat because of necessity as the only alternative is fascism or remaining an aloof spectator..."

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 3:49PM

I believe Mr. Nock was referring to conservative fascism. You know, the kind that persecutes anyone who dares to express an opposing opinion. Surely you must be familiar with that? Seeing as you can't seem to let any opposing commenter go un-insulted.

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 10:36PM

Nope. Fascism is on your side, darlin'. You fags are the ones doing the persecuting with your in our faces perversion. The laws of men are not the laws of God, thankfully, and we do not have to accept your behavior. Troll on.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:02PM

I'm really trying hard to remember the last time I had public sex in front of you, and gosh darn it, I just don't recall it.

You can believe what you like about the morality of my actions, but gee whiz, even the Supreme Court has struck down punishments for "sodomy" as your side so elegantly mis-names gay sex.

Becky| 10.9.09 @ 7:36AM

I believe the phrase "True Believers" refers to people who prefer collectivism over individualism. They like to join groups to absolve themselves of any personal responsiblity. That is why liberals stay in office and conservatives do not. Liberals can excuse bad behavior by attaching it to something outside of themselves and conservatives have to personally live with what they do.

As a conservative, I thought Foley should resign. As a conservative I think there must be other choices besides Jennings. I do not think anyone is so important they cannot be replaced.

Embezzlers like to work with money, child molesters like to work with children. I highly doubt Mr. Jennings would now openly advocate men seducing boys, but then again, Mr. Foley's behavior surprised me.

If it were me, I'd just get rid of the Feds being involved in education. There wasn't a special department for that when I grew up, and I think I am doing better than the kids today. The more the Federal government tries to control the more USSR type jokes and esteem they are eliciting. At times I wonder if this is kind of what it was like living in the USSR back when I was a kid, only we have to get a lot poorer.

Kathleen| 10.9.09 @ 12:56PM

Don't worry about waiting until we "get a lot poorer" because the way the leaders of this nation are pushing Federal control we shall be very poor very soon.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 2:20PM

If you truly believed in individualism you would understand what actually happened. Instead, you've taken what Fox News and other ill-intentioned sources have spoon fed you and ignored the context in regards to Jennings.

First, Jennings was not the man who approach the 16-year-0ld student. In the other case, Foley was the one making the approach, inappropriate or not.

Second, Foley was making sexual advances towards people IN HIS OWN EMPLOY. Completely inappropriate even without involving age in the calculations.

Third, Jennings wasn't making sexual advances, he was stunned and struggling with how to give appropriate advice to a gay teen. His advice was first and foremost directed towards the teen's safety and health. We can debate about what the best possible advice might be, but living in the shadow of the AIDS epidemic, I do not blame Mr. Jennings one iota for wanting to protect the student from that with some pragmatic advice.

You should be able to recognize that the Foley episodes and this one are very different. Especially given Foley was clearly culpable, where Jennings--at worst--merely gave bad advice.

no to obama| 10.9.09 @ 4:11PM

WOW! You sound like you were in the room! In his employee? Well, when ol' slick willie was doing Monica, she was in his employee and the libs, even the so-called womens groups, didn't find a thing wrong with it. Any other excuses?

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 1:00PM

I'm not excusing the affairs of Clinton, Foley, Ensign or Studds here, or Vitter, Sanford, or Craig, for that matter. Were it up to me, we'd not have kept any of them in office. But it's not up to me, it's up to voters whether or not to re-elect imperfect (is there any other kind?) men and women.

You are the one comparing taking advantage of persons in their employ (Clinton, Ensign, Foley, & Studds) with giving bad advice (Jennings) which is really not an accurate comparison.

If you'd like to rehash the right's reactions to affairs, let's review hypocrisy, shall we?

Mark Foley was forced to resign by Republican leadership; Senator Ensign was not. Seems to me that says that we will kick you out if we don't need you, but if we might lose our 41st vote in the Senate and thus our ability to filibuster, you're far too valuable to truly discipline. And before you say it, yes, that is possibly the exact thinking in the minds of Democratic leadership in re: Gerry Studds.

I'm not saying Congressional Dems are better, just that both Ds and Rs play the same game.

Jadis| 10.9.09 @ 7:12PM

Foley's actions were certainly disgusting, but the left has a history of "do as we say, not as we do" when it comes to just this subject.

Two words - Gerry Studds. Gerry Studds went a hell of a lot further than Foley did; Studds actually had sex with an underage page. But he went on to be hailed as "the first openly gay Congressman!" But the only reason he was "openly gay" was because he got busted.

Child predators - of ANY political affiliation - are dangerous to our children. And so are the idiots who make excuses for them.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:51PM

Gerry Studds did not have sex with an underage page. You folks really need to reexamine age of consent laws. But his actions were just as bad as Foley's.

But this is not the hypocrisy of the left. It was the right that demanded Foley's head and demanded he resign. Republican leadership gave Foley the boot. The Democratic leadership in 1983 stripped Studds of his leadership posts, censured him, and left it up to the voters to decide whether or not to forgive him.

Joe Wilson| 10.13.09 @ 4:36AM

You lie, you child-molesting faggot!

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:05PM

Hmmm.... libel again.

JoshInHB| 10.10.09 @ 9:31AM

An older man having sex with an underage child is a crime (child abuse). In most jurisdictions it is a crime Not to report child abuse. I don't see how anyone can justify this man's behaviour. There would be no ambiguity if it was a 15year old girl that told a counselor about having sex with an older man she met in a public restroom .

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 12:45PM

I don't understand why you folks are incapable of recognizing simple facts like this. He committed no crime. It doesn't matter whether the 16-year-old student was a boy or a girl, as the age of consent in that jurisdiction was 16. Mr. Jennings had no indication that there was non-consensual activity going on and the student was of the age of consent. AT WORST, he gave bad advice.

victor| 10.13.09 @ 12:24AM

The boy told him he was 15 and Jennings admitted that a GLSEN conference in 2000.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:06PM

No, he didn't.

He was of legal age at the time, per his drivers license and his own statement: http://is.gd/4intR

Dean2009| 10.10.09 @ 10:24PM

Well, Becky, you don't have to wonder. Making the US "a lot poorer" is exactly what the current rush to spend, tax, devaluation of the dollar, and transfer of money to foreign interests by those who despise the American form of government is all about.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 3:59PM

The largest transference of US dollars to foreign interests is not occurring because of bond sales to the open market, which is pretty much the limit on what the government can do in that regards.

The majority of US dollars going overseas go there because of private business. Who do you think owns Sony? Look around your house for a bit and see if you can tell me every single item inside is "made in America." Not if you shop at Wal-mart, Target, IKEA, or almost any other chain store, it isn't. It's you and me that cause the rush of the dollar overseas just as much as the government, if not moreso. After all, we generally frown when the government doesn't "Buy American."

A dollar bill is a loan itself. It is a pledge to make good on the value of the paper in hand. And whether it's bonds or bills they're holding overseas, it's still our debt in one form or another.

If you want to talk in concrete terms, it was during a conservative Presidency, preceded by a conservative Congress that we reached the largest income gap between rich and poor in decades.

Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 7:41AM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Klein amspec American Spectator 112 Show more Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/kEgG8 info http://bit.ly/P6HS3 info 2 tweets Tweet The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes spectator.org/archives/2009/10/09/democrats-called-foley-guilty – view page – cached Just last night, on Sean Hannity's Fox Show, ABC's George Stephanopoulos…

stu.reed| 10.9.09 @ 7:45AM

The blatant hypocrisy of the so called liberal mind once again is on display for any thinking person. It's always the same: Gerry Studds progressive hero, Mark Foley a pervert. Barney Frank (he of the gay whorehouse) a progressive hero, Larry Craig a pervert. I'm not justifying or rationalizing their behavior, they rightly faced the consequences. However, once again the double standard and HYPOCRISY

martin j smith| 10.9.09 @ 7:56AM

Hypocrisy a manifestation of our current political state of mindlessness. I pesonally believe people in government should vetted completely and and exposed for who they are and let the chips fall. It is very sad that our MSM refuses to do this but so be it. Let the bloggers and other alternative media folks do the work. The resposne of Democrats is highly predictable even a cave man ( u oh--do not sue me for anti caveman thoughts ) can figure it out. The good news is when the Democrats hurl
the race card or the gay card or the ethnic card or any other card you know you are on the right track. Don't play into it--but keep going in investigating the person completely.

As an aside I will simply say that once again the Nobel Peace prize is a political action worth nothing to me in moral terms or any term.

stu.reed| 10.9.09 @ 8:07AM

of the "progressive" machiavellian mind. Recall the blatantly racist comments, cartoons, & editorials directed toward Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, et.al.
Progressive/liberal/fascists have no conscience, no souls, and are amoral.
Mr. Nock--your childish little ad hominem rant identifies you. Spare me.
(sorry for the break, had to take my proudly conservative 17 year old to school)
a pox on their house

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 2:24PM

Mr. Nock is making ad hominem attacks but your statement that "Progressive/liberal/fascists have no conscience, no souls, and are amoral," isn't the same?

I smell horse excrement here somewhere...

victor| 10.10.09 @ 12:40AM

No horses here, it must be coming from your stall.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 1:01PM

Well played, sir. Well played.

SJ Peterson| 10.9.09 @ 8:21AM

So, let me get this straight. It's OK for Barney Frank's lover to run a brothel. It's bad for Mark Foley to text 16 year olds for sex, with no evidence of actual sex being had--just icky behavior. In the liberal mind, since Frank wasn't the one actually operating the whorehouse, and Foley DID sext the young pages, then Kevin Jennings must be absolved from guilt because he personally didn't do anything. Except aid and abet statutory rape. Oh, wait! the kid comes out and says he was 16 at the time he was cruising bus stop bathrooms. Never mind, that makes it so much better.

Not.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 2:26PM

Neither "the kid" nor Jennings have ever portrayed the situation as "cruising bus stop bathrooms."

Please try again, but with more truth this time.

Alan Brooks| 10.11.09 @ 4:26AM

so Baumeister,
What was your position on Larry Craig's bathroom summons/arrest in 2007, and how have you modified your position since?
Keep us posted.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 1:07PM

As I recall, I was disapproving at the time and still am. Cruising for sex in public restrooms is hardly a good example to set, and is indicative of a man who's ashamed of gay sex but still seeks it. Mr. Craig's clearly got a lot to work through and neither the MSP airport bathroom nor the US Senate seem an appropriate place to do that.

As I recall, it was the disapprobation of Republican leadership that mattered more at the time to his chances of retaining his seat. No pun intended.

Mr. Nock| 10.9.09 @ 8:50AM

"True Believer" refers to people who belong to a group of like minded individuals. The fascists were one such group. Or as Gore Vidal calls the current Republican Party, the Junior Hitler Youth. Sort of like all the Republicans at the Spectator or the members of the Federalist Society. Republicans tend to kick out those who don't follow the prescribed set of beliefs. Mr. Spector in Pennsylvania for example. The Democrats have the "big tent" and take all. I suggest you reread Hoffer but I'm pretty sure you didn't read it in the first place, or have forgotten anything within its pages.

But how would I know any of this. I'm just a superfluous man who watches garbage cans for my amusement. You'll understand that last comment if you find and read my online essays. Mr. Cram was undoubtedly correct.

KyMouse| 10.9.09 @ 9:08AM

Mr. Nock, since your comments here display a pitiable lack of wisdom, as well as some difficulty with the basics of English composition, I see no reason to search for your online essays. For example, when you say, "But as an old anti-war Republican (a species of whom there are only a remnant left) who is now a Democrat because of necessity as the only alternative is fascism or remaining an aloof spectator, you seem to be keeping the nasty party alive," are you referring to yourself or to Mr. Lord?

If your ego needs flattering, go ask the kids at the Daily Kos to join your salon.

Alan Brooks| 10.11.09 @ 4:31AM

It was as surprising to read the insipid paragraph below as it was to read Toddard's "and pick your noses!" comment in response to my suggestion that he blogs at AS to pick our brains:

"But as an old anti-war Republican (a species of whom there are only a remnant left) who is now a Democrat because of necessity as the only alternative is fascism "

And again, isn't "aloof spectator" redundant?

Joyce| 10.9.09 @ 9:50AM

I believe Spector of PA left the Rupblican party of his own free will at Joe Biden's urging. I don't recall the Rupblicans "kicking him out". BTW, Spector is a disgrace along with another PA resident, Murtha.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 4:01PM

No, the Republicans didn't kick him out.

They just indicated they might support his rival in the primaries.

Son Of Sam | 10.9.09 @ 10:17AM

yeah fool, you keep thinking that while we run over your pathetic RINO carcass next year. Please Nock, whatever you do, don't stop drooling: you're making our job as patriots who actually love America so much easier.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 12:49PM

"You'll understand that last comment if you find and read my online essays."

I've not read your work, but I have read Memoirs of a Superfluous Man and so recognize the reference. Let me say that I'm with you as far as Old Right principles go, and oppose the GOP according to them. But your support of Obama exposes you either as a fraud or someone who misunderstands the Old Right in its entirety. Obama is as far from conservative as Bush was, and has embraced the vast majority of Bush's most destructive and anti-constitutional policies. A man who is waging one war, escalating another and pondering a third is no champion of Peace. If anything, he deserves the Dick Cheney Award for Warmongering and Constitution-Subversion.

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 12:05AM

All politics are devious, Toddard;
you expect too much, in too short a time.

Alan Brooks| 10.11.09 @ 4:21AM

And lighten up fer chrissakes, Todd. You're like a Safety Patrol officer stamping his foot and shouting,
"Cheney, if you don't behave I'll tell Katie Couric on you!"

Politics is a game like chess. A serious game, but a game all the same. The players try to checkmate each other and end up checkmating themselves.
Isn't it sad you can't change the rules of the game by stamping your little foot? for once I sympathize with you.

Rocin| 10.9.09 @ 9:11AM

The "progressive" mind is a fascinating thing to watch in action.
It is truly amazing, the lengths it will go to protect and shelter its own kind.

Steve| 10.9.09 @ 9:24AM

Aw, jeez Mr. Lord. Can't we all just MOVE ON? The Foley thing was then, this is now -- and besides, since Foley was a Republican, he was ipso facto an evil man, whereas Mr. Jennings is a safe, good, boy-loving pervert. Don't you get it? There's no outrage here, folks -- just move along, please.

Mr. Nock: your phone is ringing -- it's George Soros.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 2:53PM

There you go again. Taking comments out of context.

Specifically, you've manufactured Mr. Jennings very real respect for Harry Hay's involvement with the Mattachine Society (an early LGBT rights group) into an association with Hay's later involvement with NAMBLA. Jennings has never indicated that he supports or condones NAMBLA's goals, nor has he been charged with any sex-related crimes, nor is there any indication he has ever even dated anyone significantly younger than himself.

Nice try though.

Flee| 10.10.09 @ 3:43AM

I will say it as plainly as I can for the liberals among us: the one opportunity he had to protect a child he didn't. That is what this comes down to in the end. If a teacher suggested to a teenage girl that she use a condom with a man she met in a coffee shop, or bus station for that matter, would you feel that teacher had the safety of the girl at heart? The problem is not the age of the child or that it is male to male; the problem is not caring enough about the safety of a child that the only thing that came to his mind was the use of a condom. Lord knows you wouldn't want the child to get a disease from a bus station pedophile. That might ruin his life for good. If he had at least suggested maybe he shouldn't be hanging around in bus stations at all and talking to strange men as another before he expressed his interest in "safe" sex. This is what surprises me the most.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 1:13PM

This is not and was never an issue of Mr. Jennings condoning pedophilia. He does not and has said so on many occasions.

This was a student who was of legal age of consent, so the student's gender is irrelevant to the issue. His age is. He was 16. He recollects that he did not have sex with a "bus station pedophile" nor did he say such to his teacher. Mr. Jennings may have given bad advice to the student, but he did not fail his legal obligations.

Joe Wilson| 10.13.09 @ 4:39AM

Two words: you lie!

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:07PM

Two words: provide proof.

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 12:08AM

You got it.
Just google 'boylove' or 'girlove', and you'll find it is the new In-thing for guys who want to be ahead of the curve.

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 12:16AM

Hay's is just 'doing his thing', baby.
Aren't we all. We have no right to judge anyone except those we do not respect, such as Larry Craig-- who was pilloried for tapping his toes in a public lavatory.

Alan Brooks| 10.10.09 @ 12:26AM

We are tolerant of all-- save for those we do not like:

please, let's stop being so judgmental. We have no right to judge others, except those we can't stand.
Larry Craig is someone I don't approve of, that queer-- not that it's wrong to be queer, but Craig just rubs my fur the wrong way, in a manner of speaking of course. Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course. But Craig did the Tinker Bell Two Step in a public lavatory, and that's silly. But not Ted. Ted is, was, normal, he did have a few problems, but don't we all. Look, Ted was just a sensitive Vulnerable Human Being just like the rest of us. We're all human. We have to be reminded again and again we are Human Beings so we don't get to thinking we're praying mantises or roosters.
Or caterpillars.
So what if we have differences? I accept you, just as long as you don't look sideways at me when I lecture you.
I will defend to your death the right for you to say anything that I agree with.
Ted Kennedy was a decent guy who was much better than you, you right wing flyover resident. Who in the Hell do you think you're dealing with? My attorney paid twice as much to go to law school as your punk lawyer did.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.9.09 @ 9:29AM

Mr. Nock....

Obviously you long for the good old days of Dewey and Dole.....

Son Of Sam | 10.9.09 @ 10:19AM

Yes, when "Republicans" were pathetic little lapdogs who would sit up on their hind legs whenever their Big Government Democrat masters whistled and held out a bone for 'em. Take yer false teeth out, you decrepit old fool, and go watch your garbage cans

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com

mejamom55| 10.9.09 @ 9:40AM

It's not surprising that the Democrats would be guilty of hypocracy. Republicans are too. It's human nature to support ones own.
I hardly think what Jennings did can be considered close to what Foley did. And it's ridiculous to think because of Jennings' orientation somehow our kids are in danger of being converted to homosexuality. Calling for his resignation shouldn't be based on how hypocritical the Dems sound, but on whether or not, based on this incident, he can do the job. However, there have got to be many other men and women who are just as qualified without the controversy.
And anyone who complains of too much big government in the schools, remember, "No Child Left Behind" was a G.W. Bush baby.

Joyce| 10.9.09 @ 9:54AM

Remember, Teddy Kennedy had his hands all over No Child Left Behind. Wasn't it his bill and if I remember he sure took credit for it. When it started to stink, Teddy backed off. Now you never see his name associated with it.

Robert| 10.9.09 @ 9:51AM

Mr. Nock, your misrepresentation of facts is ridiculous and appalling..."Republicans tend to kick out those who don't follow the prescribed set of beliefs. Mr. Sprector Pennsylvania for example." Oh, and you also have the ability to know people's motives, "I'm sure you're squeaming with anger you're so disgusted with the news that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize." So how did you aquire these abilities that none of the rest of us have? I'm impressed.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 2:57PM

"Progressive/liberal/fascists have no conscience, no souls, and are amoral,"

That's from stu.reed several comments up. He's not the only one who seems to be able to read minds Robert.

Mr. Nock's blanket characterizations are indeed unfair. Perhaps you should open your eyes to the fact that there are plenty on your own end of the political spectrum that engage in the same stereotyping. Why have you only called Nock on the carpet for his sins?

Joe Wilson| 10.13.09 @ 4:41AM

We need only read the revisionist history in your hypocritical comments to know what you think. Nock lies. And you lie.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:08PM

More accusations, but still no proof...

Robert Martin| 10.9.09 @ 9:53AM

Dear Mr. Lord, thank you for your thoughtful contributions, very good article.

crookedwren| 10.9.09 @ 10:21AM

Wow. Read Coulter's book Treason or her latest one, Guilty.

Repeatedly, the Left is hypocritical to the nth degree.

The NYTimes would still swear that Alger Hiss was the victim of a smear campaign -- regardless of the evidence from both United States documents and the old USSR documents.

I'm still astounded by the stark idiocy of the Party of my past.

At what point was the Democratic Party completely hijacked by Marxists?

At what point does it become acceptable for a sixteen-year-old to have sex with an older adult?

If that teen had been a female, and the older adult a male, AND IF THE SAFE SCHOOL CZAR WERE A REPUBLICAN, wow, wonder what smarmy Gibbs and Godless Dems be saying now?

Mr. Nock --
You don't know your "isms" or your history, do you?

Had he been alive today and in the US, Mussolini would have been a Bush Republican, right???

Woodrow Wilson was Mussolini's hero -- and America was fond of Mussolini's social advances.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 3:18PM

Ann Coulter is hardly an unbiased font of information, and it would cut deeply into her profit-base to acknowledge that the left isn't full of idiotic, treasonous Marxists.

But go ahead, drink the kool-aid while Ms. Coulter laughs at your gullibility and rolls around in the profits. She's a fan of the atheist comedian Dave Barry, did you know? And she's been seen spending your book-buying money to take her gay friends out to dinner at swanky West Hollywood dining spots. As photographed here: http://www.towleroad.com/2007/.....r-din.html

She's also associated with a gay USMC porn star here: http://www.towleroad.com/2007/.....ves_l.html

You should probably take a closer look at your heroes before you laud them so loudly.

Dai Alanye| 10.9.09 @ 8:10PM

Homosexuals constantly attempt to portray others as sharing their perverted lifestyle, the hope being to make their own preferences seem more generally acceptable.

Interesting to see Ann Coulter painted as having questionable sexuality, but I'd still date her before I'd go out with Kevin Jennings… or with Yo-hahn, for that matter.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 1:34PM

I never said her sexuality was in question. You're the one who made the jump from associating with gays to maybe being gay herself.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 4:04PM

Also, I'm absolutely devastated that you won't go out with me. Just crushed. As the world revolves around you and only you, I'm not sure that I will ever recover from this unexpected rejection. I weep in abject humiliation.

Flee| 10.10.09 @ 3:58AM

Johan, Does this restaurant you show Ann visiting discriminate against non-gays? I would think a true liberal would laud the ability of a conservative to open her mind and eat in West Hollywood. Since when is it guaranteed that gays are liberals? Militant gays may be liberals by nature but not all gays are militant. Some were happy keeping their sexuality to themselves and the world was a better place for it. You seem awfully judgmental about Ann taking a photo with a Marine. Even if he is gay does not mean a conservative can't be associated with him. That is most surprising about liberals; they feel all conservatives hate gays and are hyper-religious. There may be some that fit that description but it's not universal. I am conservative but don't hate gays and am not hyper religious. I believe in live and let live. I firmly believe in keeping the government out of my life and wallet. Read your post again and see who is the one that truly hates.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 1:43PM

Nope, we serve any paying customer. We don't discriminate against people who want to patronize gay-owned businesses. And it's not guaranteed that gays are liberals nor did I state such, but do you really think Ann Coulter wouldn't have known her dining dollars, and those of her gay (liberal or otherwise) companions were going to a gay-owned establishment? An establishment whose owners I can personally attest are in fact "liberal" gays.

I would think, if she were to keep true to her "all liberals are traitors" rhetoric, that she probably wouldn't want to fund "treason" (or what sane people might call "liberalism") and would thus be more careful where she spent her money. I don't hate her. I just find her rhetoric distasteful and her private life in apparent conflict to her publicly stated positions.

Just sayin.

And for the future, I might ask that you not put words in my mouth. I also believe in live and let live. Ann Coulter, by her own admission, does not.

martin j smith| 10.9.09 @ 10:29AM

Ignore Democrat Trojan horses

Pocono Joe| 10.9.09 @ 10:50AM

May I humbly offer my nomination of Mr. Nock for the Nobel for history and Charlie Rangel for the Nobel for economics.

stu.reed| 10.9.09 @ 11:09AM

Ms. Nock--
your messiah winning the "Neville" peace prize reminds of the time my son was awarded a trophy for his soccer team (which finished 8th in a 10 team league) or the time he was awarded a trophy for his youth swim relay team (which finished 7th in a field of 8). Or the time he took First place at a Tae Kwon Do tournament in a field of 2, that's right 2!
Touchy, feely good liberal/progressive/fascist crap where results are never a measure of success.
You and yours make my stomach turn and churn.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 3:21PM

Better pop an Alka Seltzer then, 'cause at the rate your extremist anti-liberal bigotry turns off the middle of this country, we "liberal/progressive/fascists" will be running the show for decades to come.

John Navratil| 10.10.09 @ 5:17PM

We will see. But then again, no one will be around to settle the bet. Good luck!

Right| 10.13.09 @ 4:47AM

At the rate you leftard commie fascist traitors are wrecking our country with your evil totalitarian programs, huge angry mobs of us will be pitchforking you and hanging your heads on pig-poles inside of three years. That's the trouble with socialism, you see: sooner or later (much sooner in our case), you run out of other people's money--and gullibility.

Carpenter| 10.9.09 @ 11:23AM

Sad to see how no apologist for Mr Obama can even address the disgusting hypocricy of the left over the comparison between Mr Foley and Mr Jennings. The self referential Mr. Nock waxes incoherent at his attempt to change the subject, meanwhile canonly shake our heads in disbelief at the moral chasm between Right and Left.
Thanks for documenting this, Mr Lord.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 3:23PM

Mr. Jennings committed no crime.

Mark Foley, at best, made sexual advances on a person IN HIS EMPLOY. Regardless of the "age of consent" issues or other emotional reactions stoked up on the left or the right, nothing can change the fact that Foley's folly was more than just bad advice.

Flee| 10.10.09 @ 4:03AM

Read the facts again before you spout off. Foley committed no crime either. Senators do not employ the pages any more than I employ the janitors in my office building. If you truly feel Jennings was trying to protect the boy in question, then I feel sorry for any child that happens to cross your path in life.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 1:49PM

While you are correct that Senators do not employ the pages directly, the Senate is still their employer. That puts Mr. Foley in a position of authority. While criminality in this case is likely questionable, his civil liability, should any of those pages have chosen to sue, would have been clear.

And might I remind you that it was the right in both of these instances that screamed loudest. The Republican leadership pushed Foley out of Congress. Republican leadership pressured Senator Craig to resign. Republicans spent more money investigating Clinton than we did investigating 9/11. And, surprise, surprise, it's the Republicans who are going after Jennings...

Sensing a pattern here...

Nick| 10.12.09 @ 6:39PM

Mr. Foley was a U.S. Representative from the state of Florida, not a Senator.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:10PM

Right you are. I should have noted that, and that the House was his pages' employer, not the Senate.

Pattern| 10.13.09 @ 4:54AM

Yeah, Republicans punish perverts for misbehaving while the 'Rats laud perverts for misbehaving. The D's are now officially the Party of Pederasty.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:12PM

I'm curious when exactly the D's lauded "perverts for misbehaving." I don't recall anyone lauding Clinton for cheating on his wife with an intern. I also don't recall anyone lauding Congressman Gerry Studds. In fact the House censured him. By a vote of 420-3.

Nick| 10.14.09 @ 5:34PM

Off the top of my head, I can remember Bill Maher praising bubba the pervert for his infidelity.

If I may correct Pattern, a more accurate statement would have been: " 'Rats laud perverts who have been caught misbehaving."

Stop Corruption | 10.9.09 @ 11:46AM

Help us fight corruption in Washington, please sign our petition

http://myfreepress.net/petitions/dont-tread-on-me/

Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 12:06PM

10/9/09 list of interesting articles « Beagle Scout links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Karl Marx, the end of the world, and communist eschatology http://mises.org/story/3769 Kevin Jennings vs. Mark Foley: Battle of the Pederasts http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/09/democrats-called-foley-guilty Another case of actual vote fraud, this time from a transvestite prostitute and con-man who ACORN got to vote nine times in the same election http://spectator.org/archives…

Bill| 10.9.09 @ 12:50PM

It is most telling to watch you folks and your complete and total fake concern for this (now adult) gay kid. You could care LESS THAN LESS about this kid.
You could care less if he was murdered, raped or tortured and you know it. In fact, most of you commenters would probably prefer it if the gay kid HAD been murdered, raped or tortured.

This is about 1 thing and 1 thing only - and that is the fact that you hate gay people. Cuz God said it was OK to hate gay people. Or sumthin' like that.

You people have become SO transparent, so ridiculous, so sad. And you are ruining our country.

This gay kid, who is now an adult, was of the age of legal consent when he spoke to Jennings. That has been proven. But that doesn't matter to you rednecks, does it? Nope, not one bit.

If ya'll bozos would at least just be truthful about what motivates you, you would retain a half an ounce of respectability and integrity. But that simply isn't the case. For you right wing crazies HAVE no integrity or respectability.

The world is laughing at you as it passes you by, you idiots. Open your bibles to page 325 and then shut the hell up. You are embarrassing us Americans who have integrity and respect for fellow mankind.

May god have mercy on you sad, pathetic, fools.

fedupinflorida| 10.9.09 @ 1:10PM

Hey Mr. Nock! The title of this article is, "Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes". Nowhere in it was anything mentioned about the Nobel Peace Prize, but your incoherent ranting about it, instead of addressing the contradictions addressed in Jeffery's article, is typical of the hypocrisy that is regurgitated from the left. Do you guys really think that people with even an ounce of intelligence can't see through the smoke screens the left has become so famous for? Oh, and btw Bill. I opened up one of my bibles to pg 325 and it was in the book of Ruth. I opened up another one and page 325 was the first book of Samuel. You are embarrassing us Americans who have sense enough to know that not all bibles have the same scripture on the same page. Who's the fool now?

sharonmcp| 10.9.09 @ 1:14PM

I'm number 12 of 13 children, so there's a large extended family. Included in that family are GAYS, Blacks, Iranian, Cubans, Nicaraguan, Ecuadorians, Germans, Asians, political, non-political, Democrats, Republicans, Independants, Liberals, Conservatives, Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, Jehovah's Witness, atheists, preachers, "sinners", southerners, northerners, high-school dropouts, college graduates, ditch diggers and a nuclear physicist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. And I love and respect every one of them. We disagree, sometimes fiercly, but we always respect that others have the right to differing opinions, without resorting to 'labeling' and name-calling.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 3:25PM

Thank you sharonmcp. It's good to be reminded that there are rational individuals on the internet who can think beyond labels and names to issues of substance.

Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 2:38PM

My folks always said if you can’t say anything good don’t say anything at all. But atlas, “I’d sur want to cee al dhems gay homersexuls lined up and hung from da ol’ oak tree bi theer necks until they’s dad an den the crows cum and pik theys I-balls frum deys ugli rottin’ faces. I’d jist sit on that thar ol’ stump n pic my banjer n my nose at de same tyme.”

“Yep, we be ruinin’ dis hea cuntry. We jest wanna be left alon to have relations wid er sis’s and mommas. Don’t wanna no homersexuls roun’ heah.”

These bozos are not wrong!! Some of us are plain fed up because aberrant sex, NEA liberal controlled education, socialistic government, wholesale slaughter of the unborn, and automaton thought is shoved down our throats by legalities and the pc crowd on a daily basis. And if we resist, we’re the criminals, we’re the terrorists, the poison that will destroy life itself. If you want to make love to a farm animal, well, that’s your choice. Just stay away from my livestock and don’t expect my approval. If you want to line the children up and teach them to sing Obama’s praises, or George Bush’s, leave my kids out. But if you approve of, or condone sex with my kids, or give advice about sex to my children without approval, I will get angry very quickly. Try having sex with my kids and it will get situational in a hurry. Shame on any parent, talking head, or elected or appointed political officer who approves of such behavior and tells me it is normal and I’m the abnormal party. Any act that one partakes of that is immoral, illegal, or in secret between you, your dog, or your partner is between you and your maker. If its legal the same applies. Just leave me and mine out of it!! Now call me a redneck, a rube, unwashed! I’d rather be called a low brow any day than bend my principles.

Deborah D | 10.10.09 @ 8:48AM

This all began when Marxists decided to marry their ideas to the culture rather than the economy, since Marxist's economies crumble. This is where Political Correctness and Multiculturalism come from. The video below will help everyone understand where we are in the culture and why. This is from PJTV:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afte.....ness/2343/

paul cook| 10.10.09 @ 1:00PM

Well said Bill. These fools are indeed an embarrassment to the human race. Conservatism is a mental illness. F*ck Ronnie Raygun.

Cook Paul| 10.13.09 @ 5:01AM

Jeeze, lefties, how have you managed to go so long without eating that "candy" from a bottle with a yucky face on it? Actually, I think you must have; the brain damage just failed to kill you because you never had much in the way of brains from the start. As for Ronnie, he's probably got a window seat from Heaven right now where he gets to watch Studds and all your other favorite "progressive" pederasts roasting in Hell.

Nick| 10.9.09 @ 12:53PM

There is a simple reason for this behavior, perverts defend each other.

This explains why Letterman attacked President Bush so viciously. He was making up for the guilt he felt for all those Clinton/intern jokes he told over the years while he was doing the same thing! He knew if he got caught he was toast. But if he attacked Republicans or conservatives or O'Reilly, he might catch a break. And he is.

Why do you think Jerry Rivers...er....I mean Geraldo Rivera defended bubba' the pervert so adamantly? I don't even want to think what that sicko has done in the past.

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 1:09PM

"There is a simple reason for this behavior, perverts defend each other."

Right. Except Letterman didn't "defend" Clinton, he attacked him, just like he attacked Bush.

Nick| 10.9.09 @ 1:48PM

I'm not speaking in code Mr. Toddard. Really, I'm not.

Johan Baumeister | 10.9.09 @ 3:39PM

Yes, but neither was Mr. Toddard. Letterman did in fact "attack" Clinton by making him the topic of several Top Ten lists and monologues.

Letterman is a comedian. He gets an audience and retains it by being funny, not being partisan.

That's the difference between him and Stewart.

Jon Stewart is a progressive satirist. He gets and retains an audience through political satire from a progressive/populist viewpoint.

Please don't confuse the two. I know the difference is subtle, but it's important.

And in case you missed it, "the left" isn't giving Letterman any favors. This article was cross-posted from the AP to the Huffington Post: http://www.google.com/hostedne.....gD9B68LE80

And this one was a People original linked to on HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....10937.html

The left hasn't been shying away from the topic of Letterman's infidelity.

Nick| 10.9.09 @ 3:59PM

I clearly stated that Letterman made "bubba the pervert" the butt of his jokes for years. He obviously felt guilty for this and made up for it by attacking bubba's supposed enemies.

Is it so hard to understand plain Engllish?

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:30PM

Nope, it's not. But the contradictions in your logic are apparently too difficult for you to ferret out.

"Perverts defend each other," you said.

Which is why Letterman felt guilty about making Clinton the butt of his jokes? And to make up for it he went on to ridicule even more "perverts?"

The gaping hole in your logic is wide enough to drive a tank battalion through.

Nick| 10.12.09 @ 8:22PM

I'll try to explain it so even you can understand.

Letterman had inappropriate relations with underlings, like bubba the pervert.

To make money, Dave made thousands of jokes about bubba and the intern, while he was doing the same thing.

He felt guilty. And he also knew if it ever came out, he would be destroyed.

Unless he attacked those whom the left hated. Like President Bush and O'Reilly. Then liberals would reflexively defend him no matter what perversions he committed.

Just like you guys have done with Polanski the pervert.

On the bright side, bubba will go down in history as the punchline to a joke. And that is a good thing.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:24PM

So you think you know Letterman's motivations and base your "logic" off that?

Well try it this way then.

You're a conservative. You don't like lefties.

To you, all lefties are hypocrites and all lefties defend "their own."

David Letterman looks like a lefty to you. His mocking Clinton, another lefty, is inconvenient to your personal view that we lefties defend what you view as "our own" to the death.

Now that Letterman's caught in a similar situation and been hoist by his own petard, as it were, your personal theory is validated because he also mocked conservatives.

Which is why we on the left threw a giant parade and pretended Letterman did no wrong.

Except that we didn't. We covered the story and no one has defended Letterman's inappropriate conduct.

You're just unhappy that the left didn't tear him to quivering bits. You equate the failure to decimate him with personal attacks as "defending" him because to acknowledge the actual criticism heaped on him from the left would be inconvenient to your pet theory.

I'm really puzzled why you don't see the gaping hole in your own logic.

Nick| 10.14.09 @ 5:19PM

Can't you libs debate without moving the goal-posts? When you are shown to have been wrong, you deflect.

You, and Toddard, implied my 12:53PM post was wrong because Letterman "attacked" bubba the pervert.

But I clearly stated that Letterman "attacked" bubba: "[...]for all those Clinton/intern jokes he [Letterman] told over the years[...]."

So, both you and Toddard seem to have a English comprehension problem. To deflect away from this, you next attacked my logic. Which I dispatched in my 8:22PM post.

I didn't claim to "know" anything. This is obviously my opinion. I simply posted my hunch as to why Letterman went from an apolitical talk-show host who made fun of everyone, to a liberal political hack who unhumorously attacks conservatives.

And also why bleeding heart liberals aren't calling for him to be fired. Or mounting boycotts agianst him, like they are agianst Glenn Beck. Because we all know it is much worse to speak agianst B.O. than to sleep with, and sexually harass, women subordinates, right?

Hypocrites.

Nick| 10.9.09 @ 4:21PM

That would be ENGLISH!

Guy| 10.9.09 @ 1:06PM

Let's list some of the differences between some of these situations. ..

1. Jennings is an openly gay man, whereas Foley is not.
2. Jennings has fought to extend protections to gay and lesbian youth for decades, whereas Foley has fought to do the opposite.
3. Jennings did not sexually engage a 16 year old boy whereas Foley did.

I can't imagine why you would even think the situations were the least bit comparable. Mark Foley is at best, a hypocrite. Just as Larry Craig and several other Republicans have proven to be over the last few years. That is why he was drummed out. Not for being gay, but for being the kind of politicians who says one thing and does another.

JP| 10.9.09 @ 2:18PM

Nice Strawman. Too bad the nexus of this thread deals with the man occupying a high WH position -namely Jennings. If Foley's actions were criminal, or at the very least grave enough to run him from public office, so are Jennings. Remember, in Jennings mind the boy was still a minor. As it turned out the boy was 16 and not 15, which in the liberal's mind gets Jennings off the hook.

But not so fast. Jennings occupies a federal position which is obligate to create policies that protect school age children. Jenning's instincts are not moral, but sexual and political. It is obvious from his past actions that sex between children and adults is ok. Case closed. He must go. Of course, the President may not have a problem with a NAMBLA man in his WH. It appears most Libereals do not.

BTW, it was pressure from the GOP that ran Foley out of the House.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:33PM

It is not at all obvious from "Jennings past actions" that he believes sex between adults and kids is ok. In fact he has on several occasions made strong statements to the contrary.

Nor is Jennings a "NAMBLA man." He has never approved of their goals, nor has he ever expressed even the remotest interest in doing so.

Literate| 10.13.09 @ 5:06AM

Evidently, JB, you can't read. Jennings IS a NAMBLA man, he HAS openly approved of their goals, and his advice to that boy shows he has quite an overwhelming interest in doing so. You must be a pervert yourself to be defending such a blatant pervert.

Johan Baumeister | 10.13.09 @ 9:28PM

I can read quite capably, thank you.

If Jennings were "a NAMBLA man" you'd have proof in the form of his words.

Please link to his writings or audio/video of where he has expressed this support. Oh wait. You can't. There are none. All we have to go on is the assertion by the smear campaign that he must be a NAMBLA man because he once recognized Harry Hays involvement with the Mattachine Society.

Ray| 10.9.09 @ 2:36PM

"I can't imagine why you would even think the situations were the least bit comparable"

The two situations are comparable as they deal with what is considered permissible behavior based upon the political ideology of the person in question and the political ideology of the ones who judge that person

Here's the Liberal perspective: A Conservative adult promotes or performs sexual acts (or even requests!) with someone under the age of 18? That's not permissible. A Liberal does the same? That IS permissible! Two similar situations, two different beliefs as to what constitutes permissible behavior, the only difference being the political associations, the ideals, of the adult in question.

Now, look at it from the Conservative perspective: An adult promotes or performs sexual acts with someone under the age of 18? That is not permissible, ever, not matter what the political associations, the ideals, may be of the adult in question..

One ideology believes that an act is both permissible and not permissible solely based upon the political associations of the person committing that act.

The other ideology believes that an act is not permissible no matter what the political associations of the person committing that act may be.

Tell me, who's the hypocrites here?

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:35PM

You've got it wrong.

Jennings was neither promoting nor performing sexual acts with someone under 18. Much as you'd like to tar liberalism based on our unwillingness to sacrifice him to the lynch mob, you should re-examine the evidence. None of it supports what you're saying.

Joe Wilson| 10.13.09 @ 5:10AM

You lie.

Jennings was promoting the performance of sexual acts on someone under 18. You are trying to excuse a damnable leftist pervert and pederast from public disgrace he has earned in full. We have examined the evidence, and ALL of it supports what Ray is saying.

Johan Baumeister | 10.14.09 @ 1:18PM

None of it supports what Ray is saying.

1) The student involved was of legal age of consent at the time of the conversation. Mr. Jennings imperfect recollection of the situation when he wrote his book or spoke later doesn't change that fact of the student's age.

2) Instead of being willing to assume that Mr. Jennings misspoke or did not correctly recount the conversation he'd had 7 years prior to publishing his book, you'd rather paint him as a child-molesting monster. Tell me, how many people do you know that can flawlessly recount every conversation they had seven years ago today?

3) Really, just admit you don't want a gay man in the job. It's more honest and people will respect that argument more than these pitiful attempts at character assassination.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.9.09 @ 1:28PM

Guy....

"I can't imagine why you would even think the situations were the least bit comparable. "

Because, Guy, Foley was attacked savagely for sending sexually explicit messages to 16 year olds. He was gay, he was hoping they were. The critics said for a gay man to seek out a gay boy who was 16 was a crime. Jennings, confronted with precisely this - a 16 year old came to him and said he had been approached by an older man (like Foley) - said "wear a condom." In other words, the same people who charged "sex crime" when it was Foley believe Jennings was not witnessing same. The hypocrisy is considerable.

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.11.09 @ 7:18PM

Here is the REAL reason Jennings and Foley should be treated with the same disdain; it is a statistical near certainty that they will return to the behavior that drummed (or will drum) them out of office. They are both hard wired to prey on adolescents and are probably doing so as we speak.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:37PM

Jennings gave advice of a questionable nature to a student above the age of consent and you equate that with being "hard-wired to prey on adolescents"?

Prejudiced much?

Jeffrey Lord| 10.9.09 @ 1:30PM

Bill...

"You could care LESS THAN LESS about this kid."

Wrong, Bill. We care about every one, beginning with unborn babies all the way to the oldest senior. Both genders, all races, all persuasions. You are projecting, here, Bill. And not well.

Robert| 10.9.09 @ 2:54PM

Yes, and yes, and YES. The fact that we do care is why we will stand up for unborn babies to seniors, both genders, all races, and all persuasions.

Paul Cook| 10.10.09 @ 1:06PM

Wrong, Jeff. Your type does no care about everyone. ie. heath care reform. You can say it but no one is buying it, Jeff.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.12.09 @ 12:10PM

Paul Cook..

You appear to believe that government health care equals caring. We believe it is the direct opposite...bankrupting, controlling, bureaucratic, choice denying. How caring is that?

Cook Paul| 10.13.09 @ 5:14AM

Wrong, Paul. Our type cares enough to try to protect everyone from your attempts to foist 0's death panels and crappy Cuban health care system on us all. Your "health care" scam is what nobody's buying; everyone here but you and the other brain-dead leftard trolls agrees with Jeffrey Lord.

Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 2:17PM

10/9/09 list of Interesting Articles from the Interwebz - LJMiller96’s blog - RedSta links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Karl Marx, the end of the world, and communist eschatology http://mises.org/story/3769 Kevin Jennings vs. Mark Foley: Battle of the Pederasts http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/09/democrats-called-foley-guilty Another case of actual vote fraud, this time from a transvestite prostitute and con-man who ACORN got to vote fraudulently http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/08/the-nin…

Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 2:17PM

10/9/09 list of Interesting Articles from the Interwebz - LJMiller96’s blog - RedSta links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Karl Marx, the end of the world, and communist eschatology http://mises.org/story/3769 Kevin Jennings vs. Mark Foley: Battle of the Pederasts http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/09/democrats-called-foley-guilty Another case of actual vote fraud, this time from a transvestite prostitute and con-man who ACORN got to vote fraudulently http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/08/the-nin…

Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 3:19PM

Media Double Standard: Foley Guilty but Jennings Innocent : Western Journalism.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…talk about gays, gay bashing, anti-gay bigotry, sexual predators, Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay, Nancy Pelosi, Mark Foley — and a liberal double standard that is bigger than the Grand Canyon. Read More: By Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator Filed under News, Outrageous Lies · Tagged with Advocating Perversion, Child Sex, Kevin Jennings This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not…

Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 3:20PM

More Leftist hypocrisy… « Jacksonian Lawyer's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Spectator re the left’s hypocrisy, particularly with respect to their defense of pro-pedophile, homosexual “Safe School Czar” Kevin Jennings. Read Mr. Lord’s article – here. Also, be sure to visit http://www.expeljennings.org Published in: Local Politics News Politics US Politics on October 9, 2009 at 15:20 Leave a Comment Tags: Jeffrey Lord, Kevin Jennings pro-pedophile,…

Margie| 10.9.09 @ 5:18PM

There is no reasoning with the perverse.

Who do they hate the most? The conservative Republicans. Why? Because we dare call them to account. You know, right from wrong. See how angry they are because of this article that does dares to call them out.

Moral of the story~ Continue doing same. Back conservatives in the Republican party, and vote the filthy out.

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.9.09 @ 7:46PM

Good evening Margie,
Rhetorical question: Are Libertarians perverse, pragmatic, or tired, (see yesterday).

Margie| 10.9.09 @ 9:09PM

Evening, Mr. Hauschild,
Rhetorical thought: Perhaps they are a bit of all three.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:38PM

Perhaps it's wiser to avoid stereotyping a group that you have ideological differences with.

You look and sound like a fool when you paint a broad group of people with a very narrow brush.

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 3:10PM

Excuse me? Ah so you think I fell in his trap, do you?
1. I said "perhaps."
2. I have a right to think.
3.You don't get to be Judge and play God about what you "think" I am.
4.Libertarians? Fact: They are for lawlessness. No laws. Fact: That is perverse.
I'd say that, more than likely, you're the one who paints with the Narrow brush.
Fool?

Johan Baumeister | 10.14.09 @ 1:26PM

You have a strange definition of "fact" ma'am.

Libertarians are not for "lawlessness." You are confusing them with Anarchists, who reject the state as a moral institution. Further, you state opinion as fact, i.e. "that is perverse."

Facts are easily provable, scientifically and logically. My opinion is that democracy is better than anarchism, and my opinion is that democracy is morally superior to anarchy, but those are opinions. And personally, I believe a lot of the extremism that the contemporary conservative movement is engendering is perverse. That is an opinion.

As for "Judge"ing you and playing god? I'm not the one who wrote, "You fags are the ones doing the persecuting with your in our faces perversion. The laws of men are not the laws of God, thankfully, and we do not have to accept your behavior."

Those are your words. If I don't get to judge and "play god" why do you?

I was mistaken though. You're not a fool. You're a blind hypocrite.

You People Are Stupid| 10.13.09 @ 5:16AM

Yeah, keep talking so we can see where your head is!

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 3:18PM

Interesting to see how certain readers here seemed to have thought I was referring to them when I wrote this post, above. I was referring to the Foleys and those like him. No matter what party affiliation!
Weird.

Charles Jackson | 10.10.09 @ 2:50AM

Now that Mr. Lord has wasted valuable TAS space on this nonissue, perhps he'll pen another foolish rant about Levi Johnson posing nude for Playgirl.

Flee| 10.10.09 @ 4:36AM

This is relevant why? It appears Playboy will be deploying Marge Simpson as a centerfold. Is that to be condemned too? Truly, is Playgirl or Playboy relevant to most Americans life at this stage? Jeffrey Lord has some of the finest insights I have found on the net and I sincerely hope he continues for many years.

Raid| 10.10.09 @ 5:56AM

You're no true American. I curse you, Flee. You will rot in HELL.

subbu | 10.10.09 @ 5:37AM

great, at last the talk about on good thing

Jeff Lord| 10.10.09 @ 5:55AM

I like cock.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.12.09 @ 12:04PM

Oh please. Grow up.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:40PM

Amen.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:40PM

How on earth does this add to the debate? Please go back to 4chan, from whence you came, "Jeff Lord."

America| 10.10.09 @ 6:02AM

You want predators like Mark Foley jerking off to the young, innocent flesh of congressional pages? You somehow see this as equal, fair and balanced, to anything Pelosi has done? I think you're as crazy as a shit house rat. Enable pedophilia if you want, but know you're out on your own limb this time, Jeff.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.12.09 @ 12:07PM

America...

Hello? Hello? Did you actually read the article? I think Foley should have resigned on the spot. I am not the one defending this philosophy. But for those who claim to be its defenders, the rest of us have a right to ask for some consistency, yes? So which is it? Are they opposed..as with Foley? Or in favor...as with Jennings? We're still waiting.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:45PM

You're still waiting because you've conflated Mark Foley's actual misbehavior with Mr. Jennings advice to a student who was above the age of consent.

Mr. Jennings did not seek sexual relations with that student. Mr. Foley did seek sexual relations with his page(s). The situations are not nearly comparable.

I would have given this article more credence if you'd compared it to another instance of an administration official accused of giving bad advice to minors. Like, say, Jocelyn Elders. Who was made to resign because she dared to suggest that young people have sexual urges and might better be served by being taught other ways to resolve them than impregnating their classmates.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.12.09 @ 3:42PM

Johan Baumeister...

You say:

"You're still waiting because you've conflated Mark Foley's actual misbehavior with Mr. Jennings advice to a student who was above the age of consent.

Mr. Jennings did not seek sexual relations with that student. Mr. Foley did seek sexual relations with his page(s). The situations are not nearly comparable. "

The point is clear, I think. Jennings saw nothing wrong with the conduct of the boy and the older man beyond suggesting the need for the condom. In short, he accepted as OK the behavior which Foley was acting out in Congress. They are the same. If we are to believe Jennings was in the right in giving a pass to this boy, surely the man who targeted that boy was being given a pass too. That was the Foley role in the Congressional scandal. Either its wrong- or it isn't. I believe it is wrong. All those Democrats back then said explicitly it was wrong. When Jennings is caught up in a situation where he equivocated (at best) or gave a pass (at worse) they rush to his defense. They can't have this both ways.

Johan Baumeister | 10.14.09 @ 1:48PM

Age of consent laws, Mr. Lord. In the eyes of the law in the jurisdiction, the "boy" in question was a man. That means, much as you'd like to say otherwise, this conversation was between two men. If you're to respect the student's legal rights, including his right to sexual self-determination, as granted under the law, the worst thing Jennings did was give bad advice.

There is no equivocating here.

Furthermore, you're making some pretty big assumptions that the person that Brewster met was significantly older. To a 16-year-old, even his 24-year-old teacher (Mr. Jennings) would have been a much older man. Remember being in high school, Mr. Lord? Didn't those seniors guys just tower over the freshmen and seem so much older and wiser to the newly minted 9th graders?

Instead, you've chosen to assume that this older man was much older (Foley's age, per se), which while it doesn't change the legal reality that both are adults, certainly sensationalizes the story quite a bit.

On top of that, the former student has come out with a statement refuting and correcting both you and Mr. Jennings. Now when it comes to a person's sex life, I generally trust that person to remember it better than anyone else would. So I believe Brewster's statement, where he asserts that he did not have sex with the gay person he met while traveling to Boston that weekend nor did he tell Mr. Jennings that he had.

Foley was wrong not because he targeted a young person who, so I'm told on here, was above DC's age of consent. Foley targeted a subordinate. At that point, it doesn't matter if the subordinate was 16, 18, or 35. Sexual advances on a subordinate are inappropriate for a couple reasons, not the least of which is that not everybody would say no if they thought they'd lose their job or get a bad review as a result.

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 3:25PM

Jefferey,
I got the entire point of the article. Not for one second did I think in any way you were condoning Foley's sick behavior, nor did I get the impression that you truly thought he should have kept working. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That's why I commented that you were illustrating the absurd by being absurd (which got twisted). Perhaps that wasn't exactly what you were doing, but I meant that toward the letter to Pelosi. Anyhow, I don't think the Lefties in here will answer your question, because they all believe the behavior is "up to the individual." I don't. I'm glad Foley resigned, and that's why I also said we need to vote the filthy out!
Ugh!

Pingback| 10.10.09 @ 9:02AM

DEMs now the Pedophile Party; Defends Jennings to the end « VotingFemale Speaks! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Post __________________________________________________ Articles from the Blogosphere As Obama Dawdles, Taliban Mount Terrorist Offensive Across South Asia | American Power Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes | American Spectator Weekend Open Thread | BigGovernment What Makes Anderson Cooper Happy? | BigHollywood Charles Krauthammer: Liberal Ascendancy Has Set Us On a Course for Decline (Video) |…

Yosemeti Sam| 10.10.09 @ 10:19AM

River of words!

Simply - the 'art' of projection of sexual
misconduct is the Democrat partys' forte.

Aided by the decrepit swampland LMSM.

Short and sweet - and to the point!

WI sense| 10.10.09 @ 12:28PM

You people are certifiable. Mark Foley actually flirted with underage boys under his supervision and possibly wanted to have sex with them. 20 years ago, Jennings counciled a teenager having sex with an older man to wear a condom. Bad advice, I agree. He absolutely should have counciled him to stop among other things. But to make these equivalent is insane. He also stated that he admired Mr. Hay for founding one of the first gay rights movements, and you people translate that into his being in favor of pedophilia!!! Nancy Pelosi walks in a gay pride march where some freaks who support NAMBLA also show up and you nutcases translate that into Pelosi supporting pedophilia. You people are absolutely hysterical in your logic and paranoia. Keep it up! Please!! Normal people all see you for who you are and you are a huge help to keeping the Republican party in the minority!!! I am a liberal and have many liberal friends and many gay friends. I have never met anyone who would think that sex between a boy and a man is acceptable. You people are freaks!!!!!

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.10.09 @ 2:10PM

WI Sense: "You people are absolutely hysterical in your logic and paranoia. Keep it up! Please!! Normal people (all) see you for who you are and you are a huge help to keeping the Republican party in the minority!!!”

Are you drunk WI? You are typing like you’re drunk! Put down the bottle Wi, and answer this, have you ever met a normal person in your life? Or have you only seen them (normal people) from 35,000 feet and above, as you’re flying over them, on your way to the other coast?

“ I am a liberal and have many liberal friends and many gay friends.”

Really WI? I would never have guessed that? No crap you’re a Liberal, you sound exactly like every other Liberal who’s ever been drinking and typing here before.

And from what big City are you from WI? The stupid Rednecks (as you Liberals like to call us) that like to visit this pig wallowing infested internet site here (See: Albert Jay Cock’ post below), would like to know (or at least I would). I’m guessing from New York? Or San Fran?

And you think you know how normal Americans feel, and think? You don’t WI, you’ve never seen or met a real American in you life, unless your plane crashed.

“You people are freaks!!!!!”

No Wi, you’re the freak, we’re the rest of America, who don’t buy into your (Liberal) warped version, of an American future full of debauchery. Stay in the Big City WI, you’ll never understand normal Americans.

And about being in the minority, if you’re in the majority, I’ll stay in the minority forever!

Albert Jay Nock| 10.10.09 @ 1:19PM

I may have to revise my analysis of the zoological classification of Homo sapiens. I once made some remark about dogs looking into trash cans to seek out morsels of food, which I found amusing, but I'm not so sure my analysis was correct for all of the members of the Homo sapien popualtion who have not yet reached that status or stature of a man or woman. Perhaps I should have made the analogy of pigs wallowing in their manure as an alternative for certain members of the species. This article certainly pointed me in that direction.

I started to read this article to see if it had any legitimacy but I quickly determined that I had run into the deranged pig syndrome and I always tend to shut the book as soon as I run into that style of writing. Perhaps Gershon Legman had some legitimacy, as he approached these kinds of subjects from a scientific standpoint, but he was never known to wallow in such slime as the style of gossip I suspect is contained throughout the rest of this article beyond the short bit I read. I do often find the zoologicial classification of friendly little beasts related to the character of dogs amusing but I can't say I ever enjoyed watching pigs engage in their habits as I once met a man who contained all the raw material that could ultimately be made into a human being who had his face and ears eaten off by one of those wicked creatures when he fell over drunk into the pig sty. I think perhaps the best way to deal with such things is to stay away from the places where those creatures abound. If this style of writing is the kind that the group here enjoys, then may anyone who found this article worthy of reading beyond the first few paragraphs, may you stay far far away from me and my kin.

Liberal Reader| 10.10.09 @ 5:06PM

Boring.

Pingback| 10.10.09 @ 5:54PM

ABC: Global Warming to Blame for Islamic Terrorism « VotingFemale Speaks! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…__________________________________________________ Articles from the Blogosphere As Obama Dawdles, Taliban Mount Terrorist Offensive Across South Asia | American Power Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes | American Spectator Weekend Open Thread | BigGovernment What Makes Anderson Cooper Happy? | BigHollywood Charles Krauthammer: Liberal Ascendancy Has Set Us On a Course for Decline (Video) |…

just asking| 10.10.09 @ 6:55PM

All this spewing against Gays as not being "real Americans" has me a little confused..

Anyone here ever heard of Staff Sarg. Leonard. Matlovich.??..a Purple Heart , and Bronze Sater recipiant, for his couragous duty-tours in Vietnam..AND, HE WAS A GAY MAN...
..WAS HE NOT "American" enough for y'all?

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.11.09 @ 8:18AM

There are levels of what I consider responsible (deserving a response, not morality) behavior, it is not that I approve of what consenting adults do among themselves; it is instead that I refuse to waste my time worrying about anything I cannot effect or understand. I have never doubted for a second the magnificent physical and psychological bond that our creator, intelligent design, or random evolution (pick one - I placed them in order of my preference) endowed us with for procreation, physical pleasure, or enhanced companionship.
Never having understood the gay or lesbian subset of our species does not mean, however, I have the right or duty to control, or regulate their sexual behavior other than the offenses that any citizen is to be held accountable for such as rape or pedophilia.
I find Foley’s behavior was unforgivable in both the context of his lifestyle and position of authority. There is a real line and it is called adulthood, he crossed it. Preying on the young for sexual gratification by an adult, no matter what gender, no matter what context, for me, is unacceptable. Foley forfeited his office and position because of this type of deviancy and it was justified. His removal invariably protected some very vulnerable adolescents who may have been coerced to confuse authoritative respect as deserving of sexual gratification.
As to the issue of Jennings, Hay and the organized predation on children, I am nothing but appalled. Among us walk monsters. What these people are doing in appointed positions or being allowed to roam about in society is beyond comprehension. Their own deviancy is off the scale, but is does not justify remorse over the treatment given to Foley.
There are also degrees of hypocrisy; while I may claim to be a practicing libertarian I find offensive, for instance, some of gay/lesbian demonstrations I have encountered on several campuses, but realistically there are no doubt many gays and lesbians who find such events both offensive and counter productive as well.
True and monumental hypocrisy is found, however, in those who “rationalize” the behavior of the Foleys, the Clintons, and the Franks as some form of counter argument.

Margie| 10.11.09 @ 12:57PM

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

I agree. But I'm not so sure as to the author trying to rationalize as much as he was trying to make a point. Illustrating the absurd by being absurd?

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.11.09 @ 6:56PM

"........absurd by being absurd?

Margie,
Why would you bring up an embarrassing incident from the hoped to be forgotten past to illustrate an embarrassing incident in the present? At best all you can do is make yourself appear just as guilty or complacent.

Margie| 10.11.09 @ 7:27PM

You've lost me Michael. But then again, I'm sure you're glad.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 3:05PM

I still don't see the evidence that Jennings is some sort of monster bent on sexual predation of children.

He gave questionable advice to a student who was above the age of consent and was not indicating he felt abused or victimized. If you'll all pause your anti-Jennings witch hunt for a moment, you might notice that the former student involved in all of this has come out in support of Jennings and has refuted every single allegation of impropriety on Jennings' part.

When the supposed "victim" won't play his role properly, isn't it time to give up the smear campaign?

One-eyed Man| 10.13.09 @ 5:22AM

That's because you're willfully blind. Until you snap out of your Jennings worship and actually READ the evidence you're ignoring in all your posts, the rank hypocrisy of all leftists in assaulting Foley and defending Jennings in this comments section will remain invisible to you.

Johan Baumeister | 10.14.09 @ 2:00PM

I'm not the one ignoring the former student's drivers license proving he was above the age of consent, which was uploaded to mediamatters a week ago.

I'm not the one ignoring the fact that Mark Foley took advantage of his subordinates, while Jennings at worst gave bad advice to a student who was above the age of consent and thus free to determine his own path.

Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 12:54PM

Socialist Ignore South Pole Ice Reports; rather tout the North Pole to fit their glob links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Reading ‘HissySpit’ – Neo-Communist at Daily Kos, DU – Allied with Global Anti-American Resistance | American Power Obama Stiffs Gay Rights Groups – Again! | American Power Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes | AmSpec Atlas Shrugs: Not a photoshop! and “This is a bad day for New York” and The Left Bans The American Flag But Allows Drug Dealing Note to the Commander in Chief: Make a…

Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 12:55PM

Socialist Ignore South Pole Ice Reports; rather tout the North Pole to fit their glob links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Reading ‘HissySpit’ – Neo-Communist at Daily Kos, DU – Allied with Global Anti-American Resistance | American Power Obama Stiffs Gay Rights Groups – Again! | American Power Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes | AmSpec Atlas Shrugs: Not a photoshop! and “This is a bad day for New York” and The Left Bans The American Flag But Allows Drug Dealing Note to the Commander in Chief: Make a…

Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 1:25PM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Klein amspec American Spectator 112 Show more Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://tinyurl.com/yzaf8m6 http://bit.ly/YekWQ info 3 tweets Tweet The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes spectator.org/archives/2009/10/09/democrats-called-foley-guilty – view page – cached Just last night, on Sean Hannity's Fox Show, ABC's George Stephanopoulos…

Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 1:44PM

How the Socialists did it… (video) « VotingFemale Friends Speak! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Reading ‘HissySpit’ – Neo-Communist at Daily Kos, DU – Allied with Global Anti-American Resistance | American Power Obama Stiffs Gay Rights Groups – Again! | American Power Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes | AmSpec Atlas Shrugs: Not a photoshop! and “This is a bad day for New York” and The Left Bans The American Flag But Allows Drug Dealing Note to the Commander in Chief: Make a…

bobezza| 10.11.09 @ 3:32PM

I love the new drug class "hopism" I hope (forgive me) no one objects to me cannibalizing it...

BillW| 10.12.09 @ 4:53AM

This is why the Side Show of the Houses of America, need a change from the RINOs & DINOs who frolic in the merriment at the heart of Power.
THROW ALL the BUMS OUTTA OFFICE, at all levels of office, Local/State/Federal..........Time to start over, Vote them out on Nov 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, etc, etc, etc, til we have "Common Sense Conservative People" serving "WE THE PEOPLE" once again.

dasboot| 10.12.09 @ 1:19PM

It was only a matter of time before the Democratic Party's deep admiration for NAMBLA came out of the closet so to speak. NAMBLA types are always self-rightous, elitist, hippie burnouts who blame all of their deviance on outdated social mores. They also love to point out so called hypocricy in non-deviants. Kind of like the modern day liberal dont you think? It's perfect that Obama appointed a NAMBLA admirer/sympathizer to the Ministry of School Safety. I can't believe I'm actually living in 1984. To all the liberals reading this: you are PATHETIC.

Johan Baumeister | 10.12.09 @ 2:52PM

Deep admiration for NAMBLA? Are you on crack?

None of us want our kids to be the subject of abuse, and to claim otherwise of the Dems is nothing more than political agitprop. But I'm sure your blind adherence to the anti-liberal bigotry of Rush and Beck would make them proud.

Johard Blowmaster | 10.13.09 @ 5:31AM

Yes, your deep admiration for NAMBLA. We can see it in your numerous posts defending this pervert Jennings, not to mention your lamestream media's defenses of Polanski, another pervert. (It ain't just a "gay" thing, as that case proves. I bet some of those media hacks get their talking points from Voices Of Alice!)

All of you leftards want to subject everyone's kids to sexual abuse, as your continued promotion of GLSEN in our public schools and "hate crime" laws that punish certain thoughts and words amply demonstrates. That you claim otherwise of the Dems in the face of the overwhelming evidence is proof that you're a liar and a hypocrite. But I'm sure your blind adherence to the anti-conservative bigotry of Olbermann and Soros would make those leftards proud.

Johan Baumeister | 10.14.09 @ 2:04PM

Clearly you can't handle the power of a keyboard. This is why we "leftards" don't want you to be able to buy assault rifles.

Pingback| 10.12.09 @ 1:28PM

Hmm. Pelosi always loved pedophiles and Media Matters didn’t. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of leftists excusing the inexcusable — when leftists are the ones at issue. Turns out that Nancy Pelosi, in addition to Hillary Clinton and Kevin Jennings, loves her some pedophiles. Yeah, she marched in the 2001 San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, which was dedicated to none other than NAMBLA’s Harry Hay! Here’s the funny part: now that conservatives, most notably Hannity, are condemning…

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 2:59PM

LOL! Now we're bigots if we're against Liberals! Are YOU on crack? Who are you, GOD?

What? You don't believe in God? Then you're an anti-God bigot!

Johan Baumeister | 10.14.09 @ 2:09PM

No, you're bigots not because you disagree with us, but because you can't resist personal attacks, smear campaigns, and outright libel.

Instead of, you know, debating the issue like Mr. Lord is at least attempting to do. You would be a bigot. He is not, as he seems capable of some modicum of respect for those with whom he disagrees. Furthermore, Mr. Lord attempts at least to defend his position with reason, even if it appears to me that he does not have all the facts, I respect his efforts.

You, on the other hand, leaven your disagreement with insults, judgement, and self-righteous attitudes while providing no reasoned argument and (more importantly) no respect. Since you give no respect, you get none in return. Good day, ma'am. This will be my last reply to you.

Pingback| 10.13.09 @ 6:31PM

Sunday, October 11th, 2009 « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Sunday, October 11th, 2009 « Insider politics from across the State of South Carolina – SCHoltine Mobile Home Buzzworthy Sunday, October 11th, 2009 2009 October 11 by SCHotline U.S. NEWS & POLITICS Sunday, October 11th, 2009 Michelle…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 7:56AM

Black Gay Hunks » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crime links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Black Gay Hunks The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Men 4 You: Click here for live video chat Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 7:57AM

Baywatch Hunks links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Baywatch Hunks Baywatch Hunks The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 7:58AM

Naked Guys » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 8:17AM

Boy Gay Straight » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crim links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 8:17AM

Horny Twink » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 8:43AM

Amar Twink links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Amar Twink Amar Twink The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 8:47AM

College Twinks » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 8:53AM

Frat Boys links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Frat Boys Frat Boys The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 8:55AM

Gay Sex vids » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Gay Sex vids The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Men 4 You: Click here for live video chat Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 8:56AM

Blowjob Twink » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 9:05AM

Boy Horny Straight » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Cr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Boy Horny Straight The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Men 4 You: Click here for live video chat Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 9:25AM

Gay Hunks Wanking » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Cri links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 9:25AM

Gay Hunks Fucking » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Cri links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 9:27AM

Free Twink Sex » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Free Twink Sex The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Men 4 You: Click here for live video chat Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 9:27AM

Naked Straight links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Naked Straight Naked Straight The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 9:47AM

Gay Asian Hunks » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crime links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 9:57AM

Free Pics Twinks » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crim links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Free Pics Twinks The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Men 4 You: Click here for live video chat Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 10:14AM

Cute Straight Boy » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Cri links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 10:19AM

Nude Twink links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Nude Twink Nude Twink The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 10:50AM

College Frat Boys » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Cri links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 12:07PM

College Frat Boy » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crim links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 1:06PM

Hairy Twinks » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Hairy Twinks The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Men 4 You: Click here for live video chat Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 5:04PM

Naked Twinks links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Naked Twinks Naked Twinks The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.23.09 @ 6:20AM

Free Twink Pics » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crime links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. He suffered a brutal death and his parents bear that pain still. But his death and the deaths and injuries inflicted others in the name of hate don’t just stop with…

Pingback| 10.24.09 @ 10:16AM

Blonde Twinks » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, In his own words! He knew of a minor…

Pingback| 10.24.09 @ 11:12AM

Blogspot Blond Twinks » The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

> Uncategorized > The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes The American Spectator : Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes December 31st, 1969 Today post is from here. Visit the link to read more. High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, In his own words! He knew of a minor…

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|73 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|55 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|76 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|23 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 3:45PM

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 3:21PM

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 3:14PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online