Powered by TypePad

« That Whole Tedious Chief Executive Thing... | Main | A Gem From Peggy Noonan »

December 11, 2010



Chevy Silverado HD


I am thinking of incest of another kind:

In July 2010 the Washington Post in a 9-article series compromised US national security by posting sensitive locations of Def. Dept and contractors online.

Did anyone make death threats against WP reporters or owners as they are making against Assange, who is not an American and has no duty of allegiance.

Till now, I have admired Sarah Palin. But I do think her death wish was a knee-jerk reaction before having more facts in the larger picture of freedom.

Juevos Pelotas

Death wish! Boo hoo.

Give me my Halibut Bat

Comments from Rep. Ron Paul:

WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.

The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.

Questions to consider:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time. ,

Cecil Turner

I'm still trying to figure if the whole "privacy" thing along with redefining "marriage" will result in a few cowpokes coming out of the closet with their pets. Can't see why we should be stuck with such a staid traditional anthropocentric approach to such a fundamental right.

[Bbbbut . . . that's animal cruelty! No, see, [s]he likes it!]


There's nothing new under the sun Cecil, so it's only a matter of time before a boy and his dog are guests on The Newlywed Game.

And, halibutt, surprisingly there is one answer to all of your questions one through nine and it's one you no doubt approve of; GFY.


Loving v. Virginia.

Gay marriage. Adult incest. Polygamy.
They will all be equally protected.

Captain Hate

Have any of the nag groups weighed in on this? This seems to fall well within the unfair imbalance of power / all sex is rape stuff they endlessly natter about when a non-Columbia prof or donk President is found banging somebody he shouldn't. Or is this an "it's only sex" moment?

Jane the hostage taker

Isn't that the guy who writes for the Huffington Post?

Let's leave it up to his wife.

Jim Miller

And, let's hear from the geneticists. They have, as I recall, some interesting things to say about recessive genes.


I disagree with Ron Paul on the Iraq war. Wikileaks data has shown WMD were found on numerous occasions by our soldiers and has further confirmed that Saddam had some of it transported to Syria.

But I do think supporting Wikileaks and Assange is supporting freedom of the internet, freedom in general and an antidote to one world government plans rolling along at a pace out of the UN and its IPCC. The drafts quietly being prepared in Cancun for the first time uses the word "government" in terms of the UN.

The undaunted Viscount Monckton's 12/9/10 report from Cancun.


Dear God. Go to HuffPo and read the comments defending that Epstein character. I want to puke. First Carrie Anne Burger who stabbed her lesbian lover 222 times with a screw driver, and now this. I'm starting to think Progressivism "really" is a mental illness.


Where I thought it was Rick Santorium who got all the "heat" for his comments ...

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."


Jane, he's separated or divorced right now and who do you suppose blew the whistle on this guy who preposterously accused Republicans of violating our trust and regularly worshipped the ground Obama floated over at the Puffington?

Captain Hate

Leave what to his wife, assuming he's even married? I assumed Zsa Zsa's ChoadHuffers would be ok with incest provided it was done by one of the right type of people.


Santorum had it right. Now, it's Kewl to ignore 5000 years of human history--completely severing sex completely from it's true evolutionary function--in favor of some disgustion porno-ish libertarian reducto ad absurdum piffle about "consenting adults."

Hope Arriana is proud of her minions!

Jane the hostage taker

Jane, he's separated or divorced right now

I still say let her determine the punishment. She can administer it too if she wants.

Verner (good to see you) I can't possibly bring myself to read anyone who is trying to justify incest.


Jane, believe me, you're not missing much. Imagine the worst--that's it.

And I wish someone would make a graphic of a banjo picker on the steps of Columbia--and put it on HuffPo's Masthead.


"let her determine the punishment"

Perhaps she has and this is it.


Yesterday we were treated to Jane's maundering about how the TPers don't care about social issues. As TM points out, Scalia recognized the slippery slope that Paul VI pointed out in Humanae Vitae. It's all come true since P6's time, but JOMers don't want to recognize it.

Ralph L

Spice is nice,
but incest is best.

John P. Squibob

And eventually the Mormons wil be heard from.

Why reference the Mormons? You make the generalization that all Mormons are polygs, or at least polyg-wannabes. Remember:

All generalizations are false, including thus one.

Strawman Cometh

Loving v. Virginia.

Gay marriage. Adult incest. Polygamy.

One of these four is not like the others.


When the slippery slope argument was used against legalizing gay marriage the left scoffed at that argument. But of course they are liars. Another group that will be ok to marry will be children.


I wish more gay people who call themselves conservative would hold with Tammy Bruce and respect traditional institutions. The homosexual marriage model reflects a postmodern mindset, and we are now witnessing the havoc that postmodern models have wreaked on the economy. I don't expect better in the social realm.


we're getting to the point of Lot's "don't look back".

Captain Hate

I guess the homos that are stumping for same sex marriage expect everybody to forget when they were rejecting the institution as something "breeders" believed in and those sexual supermen couldn't be bothered with. When the "breeders" said "Knock yourself out" and ignored the stupid orgasm addicts, that led to the current "strategy".

So no, those assholes can't have it both ways. They can just do whatever they want in their wonderful world of high suicide rates, which is usually the definition of being mentally ill except those rules get changed because, well just because, and it's really somebody else's fault. Just don't expect me or anybody else to suspend disbelief and say "it's no different than hetero marriage" because it is and tough fucking shit if they don't like it.

Rob Crawford

First Carrie Anne Burger who stabbed her lesbian lover 222 times with a screw driver, and now this.

When you abandon standards...

Ralph L

and tough fucking shit if they don't like it.
It's no fun when it's tough.
(So I've been told)

Jane the hostage taker

Watch it Capn' you will offend Anduril.

Jim Hlavac

Sure, sure, blame it all on us gay folks. It's easy to do -- and it absolves straight folks from any culpability of your murderous, incestuous, adulterous, aborting ways while producing children out of wedlock and abandoning kids when your not stuffing them into basements or kidnapping them from your ex-spouses. None of which gay folks do. Still, you all "know" none of this would occur if only gay people hadn't insisted on being natural born sissies and did a little bit of self-defense after decades of police state raids on our bars and homes in the name of liberty. Why, it'd be nirvana almost without gays, right? After all, there were no social ills prior to the Stonewall Riot, right? All was peace and happiness, no? Sure, with unicorns too.

Clearly, by this logic expressed here, we gay folks are the cause of the downfall of civilization. Sure, sure, some tiny 5% of the population all over the world, obstinate beyond all belief in saying we're natural, needs to be repressed, arrested, stopped, stomped and smashed back into the closet or whatever it is you all think you're going to do with us. Or, laughingly, just beg us to change on our own while not a one of you offer your sister to me in marriage so I might conform to your desires. What I would do with the fine lady I have no idea, but you tell me I must do it.

Meanwhile, not a one of you would bother to truly investigate through science why all over earth so many clearly effeminate men are born at the same rate and grow up all saying the same thing -- we just knew we were when we hit puberty. That, of course, would be "promoting homosexuality." You all live by superstition in believing first, that gay men have such extraordinary power in overriding what you feel is the natural order of things, and even instinct itself, and second, that the most scorned group of misfits on earth has this power to bring it all crashing down. Still, reality wise, there are 106 boys born for every 100 girls, and thus when the music stops and the 100 marry the 100 -- six are left to fend for ourselves.

We do pretty good, too. Despite what's hurled at us all our lives we tend to be peaceful productive taxpaying members of society. And the only reason we might be a little weird in our relationships is that for all our impressionable years you told us that we were sick and demented and going to do all sorts of things we never dreamed of. You taught us, though not realizing that you did, to be whom we are. You sure didn't teach us monogamy. And you certainly didn't teach us to be gay. And, then, when it turns out that only a few of us are really whacky, it enrages you all the more. For we're just so darned normal -- though normally gay, indeed -- that you can't even find us when we sashay down the aisle of an airplane and serve you coffee and a snack. Such a horrendous threat to society that we even remember to secure the cockpit door so the true menace of terrorism doesn't get so far next time. Sure, blame us gay folks.

Well, I await the theocratic police state envisioned by some to arrest us all, and put us all together in prison so that we might be kept apart from each other on the outside. This you will call punishment, this we will call the most brain dead way to create a Club Med ever devised by man.

Yes, take no responsibility for what straight people do -- blame every social ill and bizarre thought on all gay people, like we all get a memo in every morning on how to cause you to kill your families and rape your women. We're at fault causing the ruckus, I'm sure, right after we do the laundry part of the gay lifestyle.


The creepy professor who is banging his 24-year old daughter admits in an attack on Palin after she resigned as governor that his 9 year-old daughter asked about why. Sort of like Obama's daughter asking him a question while he's shaving.

OTOH, maybe Prof. Epstein is preparing his younger one for an eventual tryst, or even menage-a-trois family style.


Clearly, by this logic expressed here, we gay folks are the cause of the downfall of civilization.

No, JH, you are an expression of it. Do get control of you narcissism, Deary, it is not about you. While you are at it, stop trying to change the subject.

This is just another straw man in that smorgasbord of straw men and red herrings that you serve up today. (BTW, you do understand that Tu quoque arguments are logical fallacies, do you not?)

It is also quite specious (and intellectually dishonest) to suggest that because there is such thing as rape, adultery, infidelity or heterosexuals who cynically abuse the institutions of marriage and the family that those institutions are somehow at invalid or the cause of these errors or transgressions. This, of course makes no sense whatsoever: First there are laws and social custom against such behavior, secondly, the vast majority of heterosexuals hold such behaviors to be deeply abhorrent, and, thirdly, there are ample instances of rape, child abandonment and infeasibility--even murder--within "the gay community".

You have here accused people who disagree with you and your "choices" of being rapists, murders and adulterers. You have accused them of abandoning their children. What vile slanders! What childish tantrums!
They have done nothing of the sort and you know this to be true. You stoop to this because your inability to face your own behavior leads you to hysteria.

It is no wonder that "you folk" are considered morally compromised by the decent.


is such thing = are such things


Clarice's Pieces gets Sunday morning off to a great start. Great as always.



Me thinks the ladyman JH doth protest too much?!? His imagination contains many more horrors than actually are committed by his imagined antagonists. His delusional ravings are the sign of a very disturbed person, to use language that is deliberately measured and low-key.

I'm so happy not to be associated with this sodhole spermburper!?!

The comments to this entry are closed.