Pedophilia, Obama, Sexism, Scooter Libby

1) Democratic pedophilia - Yes it is true that liberals seem to promote pedophilia. But why? They, like Karl Marx, believe the state or society creates the individual; so when the individual becomes a pedophile or other type of criminal, it is a failure of the state; not the individual, and so the individual can't be punished too much. In the Republican 1950s crime was about 20% of what it is now that the Democrats have taken over. In the 1950s doors could be left unlocked at night, children could go out to play in the morning with the only caution being that they must be home in time for dinner with the family, and people could even put their names on their mailboxes. Democratic promiscuity ended all that.

Probably the best example of Democratic pedophilia comes from Vermont where a Judge Cashman refused to punish a pedophile saying to the defendant pedophile, "prison would do you no good". The concept is sometimes called restorative justice. The individual is merely restored to good standing (with a little counseling perhaps) without really being punished or actually rehabilitated, while the state struggles to perfect itself and its' restorative techniques.

And then of course you have the defense bar (lawyers) which is almost entirely Democratic and loves pedophiles who are seen as victims of an imperfect state about to be perfected by caring, crusading lawyers. And this is not to mention their love for the fees they get from lengthy, complex legal proceedings that do everything but simply lock up the creeps and throw away the keys to protect our children.

And then of course there is the Democratic sexual revolution where sex in every conceivable context, and a million abortions a year, became quite acceptable. Pedophilia was one of the many new categories that men and women felt comfortable to explore once the silly old fashioned Republicans where prohibited from insisting that sex should be confined to a context that included only love, marriage, and children.

And then of course there are the gays themselves, who are now a potent Democratic political force, many of whom feel the more freaky the better in order to promote relatively conservative mainstream homo and bisexuality. A Hollywood gay type once counseled America on prime time TV to, "get to know its asshole". On a more intellectual note Norah Vincent puts the thinking this way, "the more bisexuals there are, the more sexual deviants there will be, and the more of those there are, the harder it will be for the supposedly still phallocentric mainstream to marginalize crones, queers and the likewise family valueless." Tragically, it is too late for a Constitutional Amendment banning the Democrats.

2) Barak Hussein Obama - Does anyone think for one second this guy would be within a million miles of being president if he weren't black? When I was in High School the first black family moved into town. That fall Andy, noting his huge popularity, immediately ran for class president against candidates who had been well known for 16 years, and won, but only because everyone felt so guilty, and anxious to show that they weren't racist. Shortly thereafter the family moved out of town, at least by one account to be in a more authentic environment. Obama seems to be in a similar situation. He would be the least experienced President in American history, and during a time of World War no less, but it may happen just because he is black or because much of America is eager to demonstrate its tolerance.

When he was asked about what on earth he brought to the table, he looked down in embarrassment and said, "an ability to bring people together". You have to give him credit for not being able to look us in the face and lie. The truth that he didn't tell was, "you guilty idiots all like me so why shouldn't I use your stupidity to advance the liberal cause which I represent almost perfectly". Obama is the most unlikely candidate in all of American History because he is willing to tell the most unlikely lie in all of American history. In fact, it is impossible to bring Democrats and Republicans together just as it is impossible to bring up and down together. That is why Obama has not said a word yet about what his positions are, but his legions won't let a small oversight like that get in their guilty way.

As to why Obama and not someone like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Simple; Obama looks white, acts white, and talks white. He doesn't rub white America's nose in its' guilt; so many are comfortable doing their penance or assuaging their guilt through him. Sharpton and Jackson, conversely, loudly and clearly offer real black socialist positions on the issues (which Obama only does silently) and make no bones about America's need to feel guilty (which Obama only does silently) and so they are threatening to most white Americans who want to be cleansed of their guilt without paying the high a price Sharpton and Jackson demand.

3) Free Scooter Libby - Libby should be pardoned immediately for obvious reasons. He was convicted of lying to FBI agents during an investigation. But, firstly, doesn't it have to be a legitimate investigation? In this case it was not since no charges were ever brought. If you accept this verdict you give the FBI renewed power to convict anyone of lying to the FBI under any circumstances. All the FBI has to do is question you until you lie or make a mistake, say it was part of some investigation, and then prosecute you.

Secondly, in this case the FBI knew that the original leakers were Armitage and Rove because Armitage had confessed; so how could Libby leak about what had already been leaked? Libby was convicted about lying about a leak that was not a real leak.

Thirdly, If Libby did lie it must have been because he thought there was a crime to cover up. Why didn't the FBI merely tell him the truth that there was no crime and there would be no charges brought? Simple, the truth about things would have made it silly for Libby to lie. This renewed precedent means that the FBI can question you about a very serious or complex crime that didn't happen or was not actually a crime , cause you to lie hoping you don't get railroaded into jail like so many others, and then convict you for lying about a crime they made up to entrap you.

Finally, the prosecutor seemed to have deliberately tricked the jury, which turned out to be heavily Democratic. He warned that there was a cloud over Dick Cheney's head. If this was so, why not indict him? The jury was specifically asked by the prosecutor to convict Libby to get at Cheney or the White house in general, which is something the Democratic jury was seemingly predisposed to do. In the end they did not even indict Armitage who was the confessed original leaker because merely leaking is not crime unless you know the person leaked about is covert, and, you intend to harm him. This was a standard no one thought could be met; so instead, to at least throw someone in jail, the vicious prosecutor manipulated a gullible and predisposed jury to cast a vote against Cheney and the war when that was not vaguely at issue.

In the beginning the hope was to convict the President of the United States of outing one of his own spies in retaliation for reporting unwanted intelligence, and for fraudulently manipulating the intelligence that led to war. In the end they got the Vice President's assistant for telling the FBI a perfectly irrelevant lie not vaguely related to the original investigation which had no basis at all and seemingly was started by the CIA for purely political reasons.

The great irony of irony's here is that Democrats love the Libby verdict and are insanely pretending, as the prosecutor did, that it represents an indictment of the entire administration while forgetting that it greatly enhances the power of the FBI at exactly the time when the Democrats are completely hysterical about Patriot Act abuses by, guess who - the FBI.

4) Republican Sexism- Yesterday, Hillary repeated one of many anti American claims that Democrats love, i.e., America is sexist and so pays women only 77% of what men get. Liberals love this claim because they hate America. Wage discrimination proves that they hate with good reason. The 77% lie is one proof of it in their minds. Republicans of course know better; both from a theoretical and practical point of view. In theory if women did get paid less for equal work then all a firm would have to do, to gain a cost advantage versus its' competition, is hire women. But then the competition, now at a very significant cost disadvantage, would have to hire women too to be competitive. The competition to hire women would continue until their wage reached parity with men. Thus, Republican capitalism in fact cannot tolerate sexism. Socialist countries have far more discrimination of all kinds because there is no capitalism to protect people. There is only an army of bureaucrats and police who can't be everywhere at once, even if they are not sidetracked by sloth and corruption which is the norm where there is no capitalist spirit.

Women do however earn less than men on average, but it is because of choices they make such as: quitting work to have babies, and not because of sexist discrimination. Interestingly, when you compare men and women in truly equal positions such as male and female college graduates seeking jobs in the same industry, the women will earn slightly more. A serious Republican look at America capitalism can legitimately conclude that there is no sexism. And, most micro economics college textbooks will now grudgingly point this out; so why doesn't Hillary just shut up and go back to school?

By far, the very best practical work ever done on this planet to explain the choices women make that give them, on average, less pay than men, was done recently by Warren Farrell who has generously given me permission to reprint a summary of it below:

"Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap"
by Warren Farrell.

When I was on the board of the National Organization for Women in New York City in the 1970's, I led protests against the male-female pay gap. I assumed the gap reflected both discrimination against women and the undervaluing of women. Then one day I asked myself, If we can pay women less for the same work, why would anyone hire a man? And if they did, wasn't there a punishment called going out of business? In other words, did market forces contain a built-in punishment against discrimination? Perhaps, I thought, male bosses undervalue women. But I discovered women without bosses--who own their own businesses-- earn only 49 percent as much as male business owners. Why? When the Rochester Institute of Technology surveyed business owners with MBAs, they discovered money was the primary motivator for only 29 percent of the women, versus 76 percent of the men. Women prioritized autonomy, flexibility (25 to 35-hour weeks and proximity to home), fulfillment, and safety. These contrasting goals were reflected in contrasting behavior: male business owners working 29 percent more; being in business 51 percent longer; having more employees; and commuting 47 percent farther. To make a fair legal assessment of the value of these differences requires more than saying, for example, that people who work 33 percent more hours should earn that much more pay. The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that people who work 33 percent more hours get about double the pay. For example, people who work 44 hours per week make more than twice the pay of those working 34 hours. (Not at the same job, but, for example, at a job like a national sales representative, that would not even be available to someone who could only work 34 hours per week.) After a decade of research, I discovered 25 differences in men and women's work-life choices. All of them lead to men earning more money; and all lead to women having lives more balanced between work and home. (Since real power is about having a better life, well, once again, the women have outsmarted us!)High pay, as it turns out, is about trade-offs. Men's trade-offs include working more hours (women work more at home); taking more-dangerous, dirtier and outdoor jobs (garbage collecting; construction; trucking); relocating and traveling; training for more technical jobs with less people contact (engineering); taking late night shifts; working for more years; and being absent less frequently. These are just 10 of the 25 variables that must be controlled to accurately assess the pay gap. And they don't include three of the most important variables: ones specialty, sub-specialty and productivity.Is the pay gap, then, about men and women's choices? Not quite. Its about parents choices. Women who have never been married and are without children earn 117 percent of their male counterparts. (The comparison controls for education, hours worked and age.) Why? The decisions of never-married women without children are more like men's (e.g., they work longer hours and don't leave their careers), and never-married men's are more like women's (careers in arts, etc.). The result? The women out-earn the men. The crucial variable in the pay gap is family decisions. And the most important family variable is the division of labor once children are born: children lead to dad intensifying his work commitments and mom intensifying her family commitments. The pay gap, then, is not the problem. It is a reflection largely of family decisions that we may or may not wish to change. The law can still attend to discrimination, but not by starting with the assumption the pay gap means discrimination. Does the change in division of labor once children arrive imply mothers sacrifice careers? Not quite. Polls of people in their twenties find both genders would prefer sacrificing pay for more family time. In fact, men in their twenties are more willing to sacrifice pay for family than women (70% of men; 63% of women). The next generations discussion may not be who sacrifices career? but who sacrifices being the primary parent? The real discrimination may be discrimination against dads option to raise children. Don't women, though, earn less than men in the same job? Yes and no. For example, with doctors, the Bureau of Labor Statistics lumps physicians and surgeons together. The male doctor is more likely to be the surgeon, work in private practice, for hours that are longer and less predictable, and for more years. When these variables are accounted for, the pay is precisely the same. What appears to be the same job (doctor) is not the same job. Are these women's choices? When I taught at the school of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, I saw my female students eyeing specialties with fewer and more predictable hours (dermatology, psychiatry). Conversely, they avoided specialties with lots of contact with blood and death, such as surgery.But don't female executives also make less than male executives? Yes. Discrimination? Lets look. Comparing men and women who are corporate vice presidents camouflages the facts that men more frequently assume financial, sales and other bottom-line responsibilities (vs. human resources or PR); they are vice presidents of national and international (vs. local or regional) firms; with more personnel and revenues; they are more likely executive or senior vice-presidents. They have more experience, relocate more, travel overseas more, and are considerably older when they become executives. Comparing men and women with the same jobs is still often to compare apples and oranges. However, when all 25 choices are the same, the great news for women is that then they make more than men. Is there, nevertheless, discrimination against women? Yes. For example, the old boys network. But in some fields, men are virtually excluded try getting hired as a male dental hygienist, nursery school teacher, cocktail waiter, or selling even mens clothing at Wal-Mart. The social problem with focusing our legal binoculars only on discrimination against women is that the publicity those lawsuits generate leads us to miss opportunities for women. For example, we miss 80 fields in which women can work, for the most part, fewer hours and fewer years, and still earn more than men. Fields such as financial analyst, speech-language pathologist, radiation therapist, library worker, biological technician, funeral service worker, motion picture projectionist. Thus women focused on discrimination don't know which female engineers make 143 percent of their male counterparts; or why female statisticians earn 135 percent. Nor did my daughters know that pharmacists now earn almost as much as doctors. As I took my binoculars off of discrimination against my daughters, I discovered opportunities for them. The biological instinct of most judges and attorneys, like all humans, is to protect women. When there was no societal permission for divorce, husbands supplied womens income for a lifetime so women had the protection of an income-producer who could not fire her. When divorces became more common, the government became a substitute husband. The instinct to protect women trumped rational analysis of whether unequal pay was caused by discrimination or by the differences in men and womens work-life choices. It prevented us from even thinking of radical questions such as Do women who have never been married earn more than married women because they have less privilege (fewer options) than married women? And if so, is mens tendency to earn more than women because they have less privilege (fewer options) than women? Is the pay gap not about male power, but about male obligation and female privilege?The result? Employers today often feel in a precarious relationship with their female employees. Will the woman submitting her employment file today be filing a lawsuit tomorrow? My goal is to give women ways of earning more rather than suing more, thus erasing the fear of companies to pursue women so as not to be sued by women; to give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more; and give the government ways of separating real discrimination from its appearance. This is the world I want for my daughters. Warren Farrell is author of Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap--and What Women Can Do About It and several other books. More at http://www.warrenfarrell.com/.

bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
thurs8:04