No 856 “En mi opinión” Enero 23, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
The Biggest Lie Obama Told In his State of the Union Address
by Gary DeMar
“I have no more campaigns to run. My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I’ve had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol — to do what I believe is best for America.”
Of course, there’s the lie about no more campaigns. He’s always campaigning. The lie is in the statement about the day he “swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol. Here’s the presidential oath that every president takes:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He did not swear to do what he believed is best for America. He swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. There is a big difference in how “best” is being used.
The tyrants of history believed that what they were doing was the best for their empire or nation. No autocratic ruler believes otherwise.
Some of the worst atrocities in history were done by men who believed that what they were doing was the best, even if it meant killing millions of their own people and going to war to kill millions more. As the proverb states, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” When Winston Churchill said during World War II that “God is with us,” Josef Stalin retorted, “Then Devil is with us, and together we will win.”
That’s why our founders created a Constitution — to keep in check what they knew was man’s propensity to do evil for his own self-aggrandizement and the benefit of his chosen constituents.
“There is,” in the words of James Madison, a “degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust.” Madison speaks of the “caprice and wickedness of man,” and of the “infirmities and depravities of the human character.”
All tyrants believe their policies are the best. They all claim they’re doing the right thing. What politician ever ran on these types of campaign slogans?
- “Vote for me and I’ll do the wrong thing for the nation.”
- “I’ll do what I believe is worst for America.”
The Constitution was designed to limit the power of government not empower elected officials to do what they believe is right or best. They were elected to uphold the Constitution; it states that in the oath.
Obama and Company might believe it’s best to make community college “free,” but the Constitution does not allow it.
We can see the problem as far back as Magna Carta (1215), and like Obama and presidents before him, “neither side stood behind their commitments” Magna Carta never reached its promised ideals because, like Obama, rulers wanted to do what they believed was best, ultimately for themselves.
“In questions of power,” Benjamin Franklin wrote, “let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” Of course, when rulers ignore the Constitution, they are no longer chained. And when Congress refuses to hold the President accountable, the chains are put on us.
Great mischief has been done by presidents and the people who elected them because they refuse to be bound by a constitution that limits their powers.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/19930/biggest-lie-obama-told-state-union-address/#jLaiOalL68tDH3pf.99
Amenper: ¿A dónde fue el Dinero que Ganamos?
No soy anarquista, ni siquiera libertario, comprendo la necesidad de que tengamos que pagar impuestos para los servicios públicos, mejorar las infraestructuras y los servicios sociales a los más necesitados.
Comprendo que tiene que haber un gobierno electo por el pueblo para que administre nuestras contribuciones para mantener el orden y los servicios en el país.
Dicho esto, por una evicencia presente en la historia de la humanidad, no hay gobierno bueno, el gobierno se convierte en un nido de burócratas que no produce nada, solamenta más y más burocracia.
Así que lo que pedimos los conservadores no es no pagar impuestos ni eliminar el gobierno, simplemente que ese gobierno sea lo más pequeño posible, que tenga transparencia en su administración, que recuerde que es un servidor del pueblo, no actuar como si fuera a la inversa.
Que los impuestos sean los esenciales para las funciones necesarias, no para que se usen para avanzar agendas políticas.
Desde los albores de la civilización, la imposición del gobierno al pueblo y los impuestos han ha sido los mayores problemas de las naciones.
Cuando el sistema político jerárquico que floreció en Europa entre los siglos VIII y XIV, en el que el rey ocupaba el lugar de poder más alto, pero en que habían barones y obispos que manejaban parcelas de tierra llamadas feudos, que eran arrendadas a ellos por sus reyes.
Cada propietario tenía entonces su propio ejército de caballeros y de siervos que trabajan la tierra. El señor feudal manejaba su feudo como un gobierno y grabava con impuestos onerosos a los arrendadores.
Robin Hood no fue un ladrón que robaba a los ricos para dárselo a los pobres, como simplísticamente no los presentan en las películas, era un caballero al que el señor feudal había incautado sus tierras por los impuestos. Robin Hood era un protestante de los impuestos, podíamos compararlo con un miembro del Tea Party de la protesta de Boston.
En nuestro países, Los Estados Unidos y Cuba, los impuestos onerosos fueron la causa de los primeros levantamientos contra los conolizadores. En los Estados Unidos con la protesta del impuesto del te de la corona inglesa, el llamado Tea Party cuando lanzaron el te a la bahía de Boston. En Cuba, la protesta de los tabaqueros por el impuesto de la corona a través del llamado estanco del tabaco. Nuestro tabaco party.
Cuando el gobierno crece, cuando el gobierno se hace poderoso, el pueblo se convierte en un esclavo del gobierno, esto es lo que pasa en los países comunistas que son el gobierno a la máxima expresión.
El socialismo del siglo XXI lo que está haciendo es hacer crecer el gobierno por debajo de la mesa, sin que nos demos cuenta. Poco a poco con más y más impuesto nuestro trabajo es para llenar las arcas de un gobierno paternalista.
Los burócratas del gobierno no trabajan para producir bienes, trabajan para ver cómo pueden sacar más dinero de los que producen los bienes. Últimamente su trabajo es ver cómo nos pueden poner impuestos sobre impuestos.
O sea que tenemos que pagar dos veces impuestos por el dinero que hemos ganado. ¿Con qué nos quedamos?
Y lo hacen con una retórica y una demagogia que hay personas que le parece que es algo bueno.
Los planes 529, que son los planes que hacemos para la educación de nuestros hijos ahora tendrán que pagar impuestos cuando se usen. El plan de Obama es tratar a retiros de estos planes de ahorro, que son financiados con el dinero que ya se ha tributado — como ingreso regular para el beneficiario. Por lo tanto este dinero será gravado otra vez antes de que pueda ser utilizado para pagar por educación superior.
Lo mismo con las herencias, si ya yo pagué impuestos por ese dinero cuando lo gané, ¿Por qué mis hijos tienen que volver a pagar un impuesto que es casi la mitad de la herencia?
El otro impuesto a los “ricos”, porque para Obama y su gobierno todo el mundo es rico a la hora de pagar impuesto, es el impuesto al capital.
La deferencia del impuesto al capital, o sea cuando una persona recibe una utilidad surplus o vende un negocio, no es beneficioso para la economía en general que deje ese dinero sin movimiento en un banco o en el colchón de la cama. Lo que conviene es que lo invierta y así se incrementa la economía y se crean nuevos trabajos.
Así que si lo vuelve a invertir, tiene una deferencia de una rebaja de impuesto en las ganancias en ese capital. Lo mismo sucede cuando vendemos la casa en que vivimos, si compramos otra casa, no tendremos que pagar impuesto por lo que ganamos en la venta de la primera casa.
Pero al poderoso gobierno no le gusta estas cosas, son privilegios que hay que eliminar para ayudar a lo que él denomina la “clase media”, pero lo que a mí me parece que a lo que se refiere, y a los que esto beneficia, es a la CLASE gobernante que es MEDIA hija de puta.
O quizás no sea media pero completa.
Rick Santorum: ‘Very Difficult to Listen to’ Pope Francis
By Jennifer G. Hickey
Potential Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he often finds it “very difficult” to listen to Pope Francis, particularly when he makes “off the cuff” and impromptu comments, such as he did when he commented to reporters on a Monday flight from the Philippines that the ban on contraception does not mean Catholics should breed “like rabbits.”
“Sometimes very difficult to listen to the Pope and some of the things he says off the cuff, and this is one of them,” Santorum, a devout Catholic, said Tuesday during an appearance on “The Hugh Hewitt” radio program.
“When he speaks as the leader of the Catholic Church, I’ll certainly pay attention. But when he speaks in interviews, he’s giving his own opinions, which I certainly will listen to, but from my perspective, that doesn’t reflect the idea that people shouldn’t be fruitful and multiply, and that people should be open to life as something that is a core value of the faith and of the Catholic Church,” said the former Pennsylvania senator.
When asked by Hewitt, who also is a practicing Catholic, whether Pope Francis’ comments might lead to confusion and provide ammunition to the opponents of the Church’s position on birth control, Santorum dismissed any chance the Church would alter its stance.
“No, well look, the bottom line is that’s not going to happen. I don’t think anyone who seriously looks at this believes that it’s not possible to happen. I mean, the Pope is the Pope, but the Pope has a lot of other people around him who advise him. And you know, the most important thing is that as a Catholic, I believe he has the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit isn’t going to let him make that kind of mistake,” he contended.
Wednesday, Pope Francis, who was back in Rome, appeared to clarify his remarks, saying “it gives consolation and hope to see so many numerous families who receive children as a real gift of God. They know that every child is a benediction,” according to CBS News.
Pope Francis has frequently ruffled the feathers of some Catholics with his conversational comments on matters of church doctrine, such as when the pontiff suggested on another plane ride that the Church should be more welcoming to gays, reports the Los Angeles Times.
At the time, Santorum argued that Francis’ comments had been taken out of context.
“I’ve read the whole transcript, and what he said early on was that ‘I don’t know anybody who puts gay on their identification card.’ He said it in that context. I think all believers need to understand that we need to respect and love everybody and treat everybody with dignity and respect. There’s no room for harshness in respect to this issue — but that doesn’t mean the church doesn’t have the right to believe what is right and wrong,” he asserted in an interview with Buzzfeed.
Santorum has previously expressed excitement about Pope Francis’ approach to leadership.
In a March 2014 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Santorum told host Chuck Todd that he thought he is “a humble man” and that “he lives the faith out in his own personal life. … He’s here to be a shepherd; he isn’t here to be a scold. I think that’s a good thing for the Church and for the world, frankly,” according to Huffington Post.Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Rick-Santorum-Pope-Francis-Catholic-Church-Hugh-Hewitt/2015/01/21/id/619872/#ixzz3Pei1oWa5
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama Will Not Meet with Netanyahu During Trip to Washington
President Barack Obama will not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he travels to Washington in March, the White House said Thursday, one day after being caught off-guard by Republicans’ invitation for the Israeli leader to address a joint session of Congress.
Spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said that in keeping with “long-standing practice and principle,” the president does not meet with heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections.
“Accordingly, the president will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress,” Meehan said.
Netanyahu is scheduled to speak to Congress on March 3 and will push for additional sanctions on Iran. He was initially scheduled to address lawmakers in February, but the date was changed so that it could coincide with Netanyahu’s trip to Washington to address an annual conference held by AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby group, in early March.
The invitation was a coordinated effort by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., with staff discussions beginning last year, according to a senior Republican aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to publicly discuss the private talks.
Boehner contacted the Israeli ambassador on Jan. 8 to assess Netanyahu’s interest and received a positive response. The GOP leaders reached out to the Israelis without consulting with the White House or State Department, a move that appeared likely to deepen the White House’s already tense relations with congressional Republicans as well as the Israeli leader.
Obama has been urging Republicans, as well as some members of his own party, to hold off on passing new Iran sanctions legislation while the U.S. and international partners are in the midst of nuclear negotiations with the Islamic republic. Last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron said he had been making a similar case to U.S. lawmakers.
White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Thursday that the nuclear negotiations were at a delicate phase.
“We ought to give some time and space for that to work,” he said.
Netanyahu stands to gain politically at home from the U.S. visit. He is in a tough fight to win re-election in Israel’s upcoming March vote. Netanyahu’s Likud Party is running behind the main opposition group headed by Yitzhak Herzog’s Labor Party, which has been highlighting rancor in the country’s critical relationship with the United States.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said it was inappropriate for Boehner to invite Netanyahu to address Congress in the shadow of the election and give the appearance of endorsing the prime minister.
“If that’s the purpose of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit two weeks before his own election, right in the midst of our negotiations, I just don’t think it’s appropriate and helpful,” Pelosi said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-not-meeting-Netanyahu/2015/01/22/id/620089/#ixzz3PehEWXM8
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Bill Would Allow Immigrant Voting Without Citizenship
How do liberals even propose this kind of thing? Do they care nothing about the integrity of the elections?
Check it out:
A bill introduced by D.C. lawmakers would grant some immigrants lacking U.S. citizenship the ability to vote in municipal elections.
The Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2015 would allow D.C. residents who are not U.S. citizens but meet the federal definition of having permanent residency status to cast ballots in local elections, including races for mayor and the D.C. Council as well as initiatives and charter referendums. D.C. Council member David Grosso, at-large independent, introduced the legislation Tuesday.
In a statement announcing the introduction of the bill, Mr. Grosso cited statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau that indicate the District is home to nearly 54,000 foreign-born residents who are not naturalized U.S.
Amenper: Obama tuvo un sueño
Obama tuvo un sueño, sintonizó a Fox News, y vio al locutor leyendo las noticias:
Posiblemente ya han leído las noticias, el Presidente Obama advirtió al Congreso el martes que el utilizaría su nueva pluma de oro para vetar cualquier legislación para aplicar nuevas sanciones a Irán. Entonces el congreso ha respondido ilegalmente, sin permiso del ejecutivo, invitando al Primer Ministro de Israel Benjamín Netanyahu para que venga a los Estados Unidos con la idea de que Netanyahu apoye al congreso para aplicar sanciones a Irán.
Pero Obama no se quedó sin hacer nada, inmediatamente tuvo una conversación telefónica con Netanyahu y como resultado el primer ministro de Israel ha accedido a cambiar su posición en cuanto a la política del Medio Oriente siguiendo las indicaciones de Obama.
Estas son las declaraciones que Obama le ha indicado a Netanyahu y que el dirá en su discurso en el Congreso:
Finalmente nos hemos convencido que el estado de Israel no tiene un derecho moral de existir. “Eso es todo”, explicó el primer ministro Netanyahu en una conferencia de prensa preliminar sobre su discurso al Congreso. “Nosotros estamos desmantelando la nación de Israel. Me voy a vivir en el retiro a un resort en Irán.”
“Después de mi conversación con el presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Hussein Obama, mi gabinete y yo tuvimos largas discusiones sobre problemas del mundo, y llegamos a la conclusión que nuestros críticos tienen razón – todos los problemas del mundo se deben a nosotros. Así, con el fin de resolver estos problemas, nos sentimos que sería mejor extender nuestro retiro más allá de Gaza para incluir la Cisjordania para que exista una Israel correcta,” dijo Netanyahu.. “La retirada de Gaza es sólo el principio, tendremos posteriores olas de paz y hermandad con el reconocimiento del estado de Palestina y más allá, el Presidente nos animó a disolver el actual gobierno en conjunto”.
“Formaremos antes de retirarnos un nuevo gabinete compuesto en su totalidad de personas de la fe Islámica que este en acuerdo con la mayoría de la región.
Sin nosotros, la gente del mundo finalmente podrán, una vez más, vivir en permanente armonía y entendimiento, como hicieron antes de que se fundó Israel hace casi sesenta años.”
Colonos judíos recibirán instrucciones para hacer sus maletas y mudarse a los países de sus padres y abuelos.
El Presidente Obama ha recibido con complacencia este cambio de política de Israel, lo cual según ha dicho a fuentes no identificadas, hará que nuestras negociaciones con Irán progresen.
“Con la entidad sionista fuera del camino, los mulás iraníes atenuarán su retórica violenta, desmantelarán su programa nuclear y detendrán el financiamiento de grupos terroristas.
ISIS entregará los territorios ocupados” “Esto es un triunfo de nuestra política internacional”
Al Quaeda, también ha hecho una declaración en el internet: “Israel era la única razón por qué estábamos planeando bombardear Nueva York, París, Londres, Bali, Riyadh, Tailandia, Cachemira, Rusia, Marruecos, Nigeria, India, Filipinas, Playa del Carmen, Yucatán, Punta Cana y las Bahamas. “Pero ahora dejaremos atrás todas nuestras operaciones”.
El Presidente palestino hizo declaraciones: “Creemos que con la desaparición de Israel nuestro futuro está ahora libre para su desarrollo. Llevaremos a buen término que todos los programas comenzaron en los campos de refugiados nuestros científicos, como los avances en medicina, educación, aplicada y ciencias teóricas, la nanotecnología y exploración del espacio.”
Damos las gracias a nuestro hermano en la fe, el presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, Barack Hussein Obama.
Los únicos que no han recibido bien la noticia son los miembros del personal de las Naciones Unidas. “Puesto que los conflictos del mundo terminarán, y que no tendremos que aplicar sanciones a Israel, estamos preocupados de que no nos necesitan más”. Un delegado de la ONU Anónimo comparte su preocupación: “Oí que consideraban la conversión de la ONU en condominios
Pero de pronto Obama se despertó y no le quedará más remedio que oír el verdadero discurso de Netanyahu.
Holder Has Made It Harder for Federal Government to Legally Seize Your Property
Andrew R. Kloster is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, focusing on civil rights, the role of the federal courts and other constitutional issues.Read his research.
In a stunning announcement last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would immediately stop “adopting” state civil asset forfeiture cases. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement came exactly one week after leaders on Capitol Hill called on him to halt the controversial program as a step toward broader reform of the nation’s civil forfeiture system.
Before today’s announcement, federal agencies could take over, or “adopt,” forfeiture cases from local or state law enforcement agencies. In other words, state or local law enforcement personnel would seize property and then turn it over to the federal government to process.
Pursuant to agreements with the federal government, once the property was successfully forfeited in federal court, the originating state or local agency got a portion of the proceeds, potentially as high as 80 percent. That money had to be used for law enforcement operations, placing it beyond the control of local governments and state legislators.
The program became the subject of controversy for effectively allowing local agencies to circumvent restrictive state laws in favor of the potentially more lucrative federal route, raising serious federalism and good government concerns. Even where states had strong procedural safeguards for property owners or limitations on the use of forfeiture funds, law enforcement could partner with the federal government and use federal rules to seize property and make use of the profits.
Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., and John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote that “these seizures might circumvent state forfeiture law restrictions, create improper incentives on the part of state and local law enforcement, and unnecessarily burden our federal authorities.”
Apparently responding to these concerns, the attorney general’s new policy bars federal authorities from adopting local or state seizures of “vehicles, valuables, cash and other monetary instruments.” The AG was able to make this change unilaterally because the statutes underlying federal civil forfeiture made the equitable sharing payments optional. The Department of Justice has the authority to craft, and to change, the rules of the program. The Treasury Department, which operates its own forfeiture fund, announced its forfeiture operations will conform to the same guidelines as those laid out by Holder.
Although this is an important step, there are some important limitations and potentially significant loopholes to the new rule:
- “Adoptive” forfeitures make up a declining, and relatively minor, percentage of the equitable sharing program’s payouts to the states – about 17 percent in 2010,according to the GAO. This means the vast majority of the equitable sharing program is untouched by the new rule.
- Federal adoptive forfeitures are still allowed for four express categories representing “public safety concerns” – firearms, ammunition, explosives and child pornography. These types of adoptive forfeitures have accounted for a mere 0.1 percent of forfeitures since 2008, according toThe Washington Post.
- The attorney general’s order allows for “seizures pursuant to federal warrants, obtained from federal courts to take custody of assets originally seized under state law.” It is relatively easy for federal authorities to obtain a warrant from a federal magistrate that would enable those authorities to take custody of assets “originally seized [by state law enforcement authorities] under state law.” If federal authorities do this routinely, this exception could prove to be broad indeed, grossly undercutting effective limitations on federal adoption of state forfeiture matters.
- Property seized as part of a joint task force, composed of federal and state or local law enforcement officials, is unaffected by the new rules. If “joint federal-state investigations” are defined to mean instances where there is genuine and continuous cooperation, then this exception may be relatively narrow. But if this is defined more broadly—as any task force that simply receives federal money, or has any contact, however incidental, with a federal law enforcement agency—this exception could render the order a dead letter.
- Although “adoption” is now prohibited, federal civil asset forfeiture by referral is not. In other words, local law enforcement may simply give a heads-up to federal law enforcement to make the initial seizure. Pursuant tofederal law, state or local law enforcement agencies still might be eligible for equitable sharing funds. This type of action violates the spirit of last week’s move but not the letter.
- The assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division can approve adoptions going forward. It remains to be seen how often, and on what grounds, adoptions will be granted under this exception, which also could prove to be quite broad.
- Finally, the order represents internal DOJ policy and not a change in statute. It thus could be reversed at any time.
Will this reform be a case where the exceptions swallow the rule? That remains to be seen. The exact limits placed on equitable sharing are as yet unclear.
Today’s announcement in no way will hinder forfeiture actions executed solely by federal authorities, and it leaves open the option for state and local law enforcement to pursue in state courts the civil forfeiture cases they otherwise would have transferred to the federal government. This puts renewed focus on the need for legislative reform of state civil forfeiture laws. Washington, D.C., and Minnesota have enacted broad reforms meant to protect innocent property owners; other states should follow suit.
And regardless of how broadly or narrowly these exceptions prove to be, if one of these exceptions is invoked, it still allows state and local agencies to skirt any state law limitations regarding how and when forfeited funds obtained under current equitable sharing rules can be used by local authorities.
While the Justice Department continues its top-to-bottom review of the civil forfeiture program, Congress should continue to take up the challenge of forfeiture reform, addressing this and the many other issues of federal forfeiture that remain untouched. Numerous bills have been proposed in bothhouses of Congress, and this is one of the few truly bipartisan issues.
The prospects look good: Sen. Grassley, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Friday’s announcement but indicated he would still push for legislative reforms.
Horrible! Liberals Want Incest: The Next Frontier in ‘Reproductive Freedom’
By Matt Barber /
Like a plastic Piggly Wiggly bag fluttering about in the alley, those untethered from God’s natural law are violently tossed to and fro by the gusting winds of moral relativism. Jenny Kutner is one such Piggly Wiggly bag. A 20-something assistant editor at Salon.com, she describes herself as “focusing on sex, gender and feminism.”
By “focusing on sex, gender and feminism,” and as you will soon see, this young “progressive” means to say that she spends her days rationalizing each and every conceivable form of sexual deviancy, as well as trying to otherwise deconstruct that which she and her fellow feminist travelers view as an artificially constructed culture of “heteronormativity” – the sinister brainchild of the evil-man-led global patriarchy (for those interested, we meet Tuesdays at noon at the Golden Corral on Wards Road). Along with agrowing number of secular leftists, Kutner’s latest sexual taboo for de-stigmatization is incest.
Those of us defending the institution of legitimate marriage and fighting to preserve respect for sexual morality in our culture have long warned of the greasy slope made slippery by the advent of counterfeit “same-sex marriage.”
If you artificially remove one requirement for marriage – in this case, the binary male-female prerequisite – then there is no justification, logically or legally, for not removing all requirements. If we yank one foundational brick from the marriage wall, then, as in the days of Jericho, the whole danged thing comes a-tumblin’. That is to say, in the wake of America’s burgeoning “gay marriage” tsunami, we can soon expect to dog-paddle the ensuing sewage of legalized polygamy, incestuous marriage and heaven-knows-what-else.
In her Jan. 15 piece headlined, “A woman describes her sexual relationship with her estranged father,” Kutner introduces us, via an earlier interview with the “Science of Us” website, to “an 18-year-old ‘from the Great Lakes region’ who has been in a serious relationship with her previously estranged father for two years.”
Daddy’s little girl, a self-identified bisexual who says she lost her virginity to her father at the age of 16, is planning a grand wedding with the old man. (Can you say mass confusion? “Are you family of the bride or the groom? Forget it. Sit wherever you want.”)
They later plan to settle down and have cross-eyed children of their own, thereby restocking the shallow gene pool from which Pops can later fish for his next victim.
Writes Kutner: “Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) is a term used to describe intense, almost obsessive romantic and sexual feelings that estranged relatives often feel for each other upon reunion – yes, I said ‘often.’ According to the Guardian, ’50 percent of reunions between siblings, or parents and offspring, separated at birth’ result in GSA – a much higher proportion than one might expect.”
Holy Oedipus complex, Batman! I guess absence really does make the heart grow fonder.
Calling Dr. Freud.
Set aside for a moment the bovine nature of this absurd assertion and pay special attention to Kutner’s application of the pseudo-scientific phrase: “Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA).” This is a regular propagandist tool employed by the sexual anarchist left. They’ve become quite accomplished in the art of Orwellian Newspeak. To achieve the noble cause of unfettered sexual license, one must redefine the terms. In fact, one must recreate the terms.
Hence, male-on-male sodomy becomes “gay.” That which, heretofore, has been known as “child rape” shall, from henceforth, be called, “intergenerational romance.” He who was once identified as a “pedophile predator” shall, from now on, be referenced as a “minor-attracted person.” And, yes, the empirically pathological impulse of some sick pervert to schtupp his 16-year-old daughter shall, forevermore, be known as, “Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA).”
Kutner continues: “The woman goes on to describe moving in with her father and his ex-partner (who is now their roommate), and how she must hide the relationship from her mother, who she says has not yet picked up on the fact that she and her dad are dating.”
Ah, the indifferent ease with which Kutner writes the words, “… she and her dad are dating.” This heartwarming story of love, romance and everlastingly damnable criminal reprobation “actually forces one to do some rigorous double-checking of one’s own beliefs,” she adds. “What the woman has to say about having children with her father, for instance, certainly forced me to consider my response carefully, given my own advocacy of reproductive freedom.”
And that’s what it all boils down to – that nebulous catch-all known as “reproductive freedom.” Libertine license. The left’s sacred “right” to have sex with, and/or to dismember alive in the womb, their own children. The freedom – between abortions, AIDS treatments, herpes outbreaks and Hep C shots – to otherwise copulate with whomever, or whatever, they so choose.
“En mi opinión”
No 856 Enero 23, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR