RS McCain has the details of a horrific (and literally manufactured) pedophile ring, then adds the following commentary with which I am in near total agreement:
No one can doubt that Ginger Gorham is now shocked, disgusted and revolted by these horrifying revelations. And I wish to make clear to Ginger Gorham — or to anyone else who might get the wrong idea — that I am not unfairly trying to smear gay people with the taint of pedophilia.
What enraged me is how the utter one-sidedness of the news media in regard to homosexuality assisted Newton and Truong in their crime, so that when Gorham sought them out for a 2010 feature article, it amounted to free publicity for their criminal enterprise.
Journalists today cannot report about homosexuality, they must only advocate, endorse, praise and celebrate homosexuality. This paradigm reduces reporters to the role of propagandists, whose job is to parrot the publicity of radical gay-rights activists.
So far has this disastrous trend gone, that it never even occurred to Ginger Gorham that there was anything . . . odd about Truong and Newton’s extraordinary efforts to secure custody of an infant boy whom, we now know, they trained to perform as a gay sex toy:
Prosecutors said videos showed the boy “performing sex acts on Newton with a disturbing level of sophistication” when the boy was not yet 2 years old. At least eight different men had sex with the boy, investigators believe. ”The purchase of the child for the explicit and sole purpose of exploiting him across a network of men is incredibly depraved and very sad tale for that little boy,” Officer Rouse said.
The one story that the media will never report is their own abandonment of any pretense to fairness, and anyone who tries to hold them accountable is deliberately exiled or ignored. This isn’t about homosexuality. There are any number of issues — from immigration to “climate change” to race relations — where journalists today are not expected to do actual reporting, but rather to promote a preconceived narrative, to advance an agenda.
Well, here is one “hate” I gladly confess: I thoroughly despise these dishonest dimwits who are disgracing the profession of journalism.
I believe Stacy has struck directly at the heart of the matter, and one of the reasons I introduce this story here — along with Stacy’s incisive commentary — is that we are here at home right now witnessing something quite similar with the show trial of George Zimmerman.
Under Florida law, and by accounts of witness testimony, there is no legitimate reason why Zimmerman is even on trial: the law is clear, and Zimmerman was within his rights. Meaning, justice — and even due process — have been wholly and perversely discarded in this case, which has become a political and social show trial.
One of the reasons I think so many people are captivated by the proceedings — aside from the media’s hard sell of the story — is that they know intuitively that the outcome of this case will tell us if we can any longer trust our own legal system: a conviction for Zimmerman would show that political expedience, fear of reprisal and rioting (intimated at by the “civil rights leaders” who don’t seem much at all concerned with Zimmerman’s civil rights), and a toxic veneer of PC-decision making (coupled with fears held by the jurors that what they decide may lead to wide-scale unrest) have all usurped the stable rule of law. It will show that we, as a society, can be manipulated by political and social pressures to sacrifice one scapegoat to the “Greater Good” — in this case, the idea being that a racial wrong had been righted, and that widespread and potentially deadly civil upheaval had been avoided.
The sad and scary aspect to this case is that everyone involved, I’m convinced, knows that Zimmerman acted within his rights. What we are witnessing then is the attempt to determine if the rule of law itself can be subject to the same leftist pragmatism and anti-foundationalism that permeates the rest of their ideological world view.
That it is a Republican prosecution — in which putative conservatives have adopted the social justice paradigm of the left in order to circumvent the clear facts of the case — makes the outcome even more compelling. Not to mention, potentially very frightening — striking at the very heart of the rule of law we rely upon to give the civil society its legitimacy.
I’d bore you yet again with how particularly pernicious (and yet institutionalized) ideas about language have brought us to this point — how, in fact, they had to, eventually — but then, that kind of stuff doesn’t sell, and I’m all about the traffic.
Which reminds me: that creepy-ass Cracker Paula Deen once said nigger back in the 80s, then very casually walked off to fix up some corn pone! Can you imagine!
I’m retrospectively OUTRAGED! — though I admit I haven’t the foggiest idea why.
Completely OT: If you’re listening to Rush, this Grosse Pointe (?) Michigan sob-sister, nice lady, Goldwater supporting, Reagan admin. vet though she is, is the voice of defeat (the immigration bill is going to pass anyways, so we might as well get something out of it) and false hope (and that something is a Marco Rubio popular with lo-info voters!).
Sarah Palin doesn’t have to form a third party, the Republican party is doing it for her.
Nice Grosse Pointe lady sounds like a Rockefeller republican.
Journalists today cannot report
about homosexuality,[.] [T]hey must only advocate, endorse, praise and celebratehomosexualitythe leftist cause du jour. This paradigm reduces reporters to the role of propagandists, whose job is to parrot the publicity of [leftwing] radicalgay-rightsactivists.Yeah, I’m hearing it. She’s the perfect illustration of the “Lose More Slowly” Party.
My rule of thumb is that whenever someone who knows you’re a conservative, and wants to try to reason with you as a conservative, starts the argument with “I was a Goldwater supporter back in the day,” they’re lying to you.
My rule is when someone says, “Let me be frank . . .” is that they are going to proceed to lie like a rug.
Well, even if it worked, what would you end up with?
A real mirror image of Barak Obama is what.
Ernst,
Popular? He’s the mark. He’s being groomed as McCain’s replacement when the old fool finally retires.
You know that, I know that, but this MI professional republican is looking for a vehicle to ride, and clings to her illusions.
He’ll have to slap-fight Lindsey Graham for that spot, Spiny.
About the bolded bit of RSM that Jeff calls our attention to.
Did Dicentra call that last Thursday, or did she call it?
On the Zimmerman case, my layman’s sense is that the only way Zimmerman would be in the wrong is if he’s the one who initiated the confrontation with Martin, and pulled the gun because Martin was kicking his ass (or, alternatively, Martin was kicking his ass because Zimmerman pulled a mall-cop move and tried to effect a “citizen’s arrest”). This is, I gather (rather hazily, I might add), what the lead investigator in the case thinks happened, and was his reason for recommending a charge of manslaughter.
Absent eyewitness testimony to the confrontation, or, I suppose a confession/statement against interest, however, there doesn’t seem to me to be any way to overcome reasonable doubt based on the evidence at hand.
Unless “crazy-ass cracker” is creole ebonics for really scary dude who’s mere presence makes me fear for my safety.
E.S., for a very good, day-to-day analysis of the witnesses, check out Legal Insurrection. Suffice it to say, there’s nothing in the prosecution’s case, including the lead investigator’s testimony, which leads to any conclusion other than self-defense. Yesterday, the L.I.’s last piece of testimony was that he believed GZ was telling the truth. No question this is an abomination of the justice system.
I’ve been watching quite a bit if the trial and my take is that the lead detective believed Zimmerman and recommended a charge because he was being pressured to. Mostly because he said so.
Did Dicentra call that last Thursday, or did she call it?
Thursday was a long time ago. What did I say again?
Oh, the link to the Bookworm article.
Yeah. That stuff goes on way more than anyone knows.
Well, that’s what I get for forgetting that Diane Sawyer is a partisan hack
news-propaganda-reader.I’m not following it that closely because the future is known
as a wise-man once said.
The only thing they have going for them is Precious Jeantel and she’s a train wreck. Concur about Andrew Branca and Legal Insurrection.
Oh, you’re a fan? (Since “creepy-ass cracker” is not insulting or racist any more, I mean, it’s clear you hold her in high esteem…)
Okay, who else gets a mental image of Frank Gorshin and Lou Antonio on the bridge of the Enterprise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield
“Can you imagine!”
Only if accompanied by a mess of greens simmered in fatback. Maybe a little tupelo honey for the pone.
“No question this is an abomination of the justice system.”
Has been for many years. Usually less a racial issue than economic/social class.
“the future is known”
If anything approximating the present, I’ll pass.
I think the two guys who whored out the little kid should be stood against a wall and shot.
There is no way in hell that poor kid ever enjoys anything approaching a normal life.
Maybe 50 years ago, when people knew how to keep their mouths shut and not discuss disgusting things like this, the kid might have had a chance.
Even if no one knew about it, this kid has no chance of a normal life. Some scars run too deep.
He’ll probably end up griefing on classical-liberal websites, using a Pokemon as an avatar.
“The only thing they have going for them is Precious Jeantel and she’s a train wreck. Concur about Andrew Branca and Legal Insurrection. ”
I can’t wait for closing arguments. “If you don’t convict George Zimmerman he’ll be dead within a week and Miami will burn. This isn’t about justice. This is about preventing a catastrophe at any cost, even of your very souls when you sell this man down the river for sake of the common good. But you’ll do it because you must. The lesser of two evils must prevail. And he can always appeal this fucktacular mess of a trial anyway, so at the worst he’ll serve a year. Do the wright thing or you’ll never get all the blood off your creepy ass white lady cracker hands.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright thing…
Zimm is just the next progression of reality entertainment. Why watch reruns when we can have summer show trials?
Ugh. The worst part is that I’m only half kidding.
Too quick. Too merciful. Most Christians would consider that Satan will have them covered in terms of retribution, but I’d like to hedge that bet.
If only we could bring out a certain Anthony Perkins character for such occasions.
But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
But then, what do I know? Clearly I am a gullible and unobservant thickie and/or dumb ass. I am the slack jawed mouth breathing mark at the political poker table who gets the joke four minutes later than everyone else. Between 2006 to now I went from NR ->Hot Air -> NRO corner -> Little green Footballs -> Ace of Spades -> here.
I get mind fucked a lot I guess.
How stupid has our civilization gotten? THIS stupid.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2347706/Secret-T-shirt-attract-Simple-white-short-sleeved-large-letter-make-man-12-attractive.html
[…] the trial of George Zimmerman, Jeff Goldstein has an interesting take on why many of us on the Right are following […]