Friday, December 11, 2009

Safe for what? . . .

The editorial to which Representative Michael Burgess M.D. referred begins this way:
WARNING: This editorial includes discussion of topics that are sexually graphic. Under usual circumstances, we would never entertain these subjects or the rancid language involved. In this case, however, a very unusual exception must be made because the issues are central to the background of a senior presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Education who is in a position to influence how and what our children are taught in our nation's schools. Thus far, out of fear or squeamishness, there has been public hesitance to examine closely the beliefs of this individual because many are afraid even to touch the risky content. Our scruples cannot be used against us when traditional moral precepts need to be defended. Simply, the deep level of depravity involved in this subject cannot be portrayed without providing a couple of examples to illustrate the inappropriate content. Please do not read any further if you will be offended by sexually graphic language.

The Obama administration is stonewalling serious inquiries about sexual filth propagated by a senior presidential appointee who is responsible for promoting and implementing federal education policy. Democrats clearly are terrified of ruffling the feathers of their activist homosexual supporters, who are an influential part of the Democratic party's base. This scandal, however, is not merely about homosexual behavior; it is about promoting sex between children and adults - and it's time for President Obama to make clear that abetting such illegal perversion has no place in his administration.
Read the rest of it here. Go here and here for two other Washington Times editorials on this depressing subject.

The social and psychological dangers associated with the homosexual lifestyle, which Mr. Jennings and many others are promoting, are so grave and so well-documented that were they associated with second-hand cigarette smoke (than which they are far more serious) or any other activity not immunized from public criticism by the pom-pom media, the cover of Time Magazine wouldn't be a prominent enough place to sound the alarm. With this ideology, however, not a word.


Kevin said...

Some other perspectives on the Jennings controversy.

You may wish to check your sources for their own bias.
Ad Astra Per Aspera,

ignatius said...


I'd just like to point out that the link you've provided does not address the claims in the Washington Times editorials.


Doughlas Remy said...

Gil, here is some brand-new research from Media Matters for America (posted two days ago). It lists and then debunks 17 false claims about Jennings. I haven't compared it against the claims made in the WT editorials, but I think the burden of proof must always be on those making the accusations, so I will leave it to you to do the hard work involved. I would just point out that I did investigate two of the claims made in your earlier recent post about Jennings and found that they were phony. You will find my analysis here.

Slander is one of the most odious acts one can commit, in my view. Whoever wrote the Ten Commandments must have thought so as well. If even one part of these Jennings accusations is contested, then you are morally obligated to fully investigate it before posting them. Creative Minority Report and Gateway Pundit (GP) have been conducting a smear campaign against Jennings, and their information is severely contaminated by distortions and outright lies. After identifying five direct or implied claims in the title of one of GP’s stories on Jennings, I found that four were unsupported by the facts. This ratio is much too high for GP to be trusted any further about this or any other matter.

When I saw your doctored photo of President Obama hugging Ahmadinejad (in yesterday’s “Madmen with Nuclear Weapons” post), and then read your cavalier dismissal of objections to it even while you agreed that it was probably doctored, there was no remaining doubt in my mind that your standard of truth on this site has sunk to an all-time low.

If you are going to leave the posts about Jennings on your site, I believe it is morally incumbent on you to cleanse them of any content that has been credibly contested.

Doughlas Remy