Privacy Policy
Home | Money | Entertainment | Links | Advertise | Search | Cartoons | Contact | Shop November 08, 2009
Web
NewsMax.com
Powered by
 
The Pro-Porn Court?
Kevin McCullough
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Last night on Fox News Channel on Brit Hume's "Special Report," Brian Wilson reported on the comparison between the new TV show that mimics the Supreme Court and the actual Supreme Court as they both ruled on cases dealing with "virtual child pornography."

The TV version voted 7 to 2 in the same direction that the actual Supreme Court voted (6 to 3). It would have been 7 to 2 in the actual had Sandra Day O'Connor taken a little more of her medication that morning.

In Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition (a pornography trade, lobbying and activist group), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that images can show children having sex, children in nude or erotic poses, children performing sexual acts, children having sex with adults, children having sex with their own or the opposite gender.

The only catch: Actual children cannot be shown. Sound confusing? Well, it is.

Yesterday's ruling basically opens the way to allowing pedophilia, child porn and child molestation to be major themes of everything from movies to printed material – as long as the pornographers can prove that the children depicted aren't actual children.

Getting the court to rule this way obviously thrilled the ACLU and other pro-porn groups across our nation. It obviously deeply cut the groups that are trying to stop one of our nation's most cruel vices from spreading.

So what should we expect? More of the same, the best I can see it.

With this ruling following the publication, just three weeks ago, of the University of Minnesota Press book promoting the idea that sex between children and adults is just neato keen, I say to parents: Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Load the shotguns, carry your concealed weapons and suspect every creep that talks to your kids in the grocery store. At the rate the U.S. is going, you might just have to shoot someone to literally save the innocence of your own child.

Harsh rhetoric? Hardly. Why is the pope this week bringing all the bishops from around the world to meet to discuss the issue of homosexual (and a few isolated cases of heterosexual) pedophilia among the servants of the Church? Why is the North American Man-Boy Love Association still in business and doing better than ever before?

What is the great defense for why we should not allow children to be sexualized on film – even if adults are playing them or a computer generated them? (To be read with a whiny little voice while holding one's nose): "Because we might not get to see films like "Traffic" or "American Beauty."

I didn't see "Traffic," though I am aware that it was nominated for Best Picture the year it came out. But I did see "American Beauty," which also was deemed Best Picture.

This little political perverted statement – made through the eyes of a Pretendlander* as director – wished to paint the middle class conservative family in America as nothing more than twice-adulterating, homophobic, pedophilic, drug-addicted, twisted rot.

*[For a description of Pretendlanders, click here.]

The director's anger against the "right wing" was focused into an attempt to say, "This is how conservative middle-class America REALLY lives." Pretendland loved it – that's why they rushed it to the Academy to be deemed "the best of the year." But churchgoing America, for the most part, yawned as it came and went. It didn't represent most American families, and we knew it.

Pretendland has evidently wielded its logic to the halls of the Supreme Court. But what it has done in the meantime is to make every child in America more vulnerable to stalking men who wish to prey on little boys and girls.

I'm sorry, Mr. and Ms. Justices of the Supreme Court, but you struck out on this one. Your reasoning was lame. Your decision was even worse.

Maybe you will wear it as a badge of honor that you made child porn the new fetish du jour, but please take note – you weakened Americans today.

Thank goodness there is that Second Amendment! It's there just in case we need to protect ourselves day to day.

You may be sitting there saying, "C'mon, what's with all the 'protectionism'?" If that's you … well, never mind, you won't ever get it anyway.

For the rest of you, lock and load. And be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Kevin McCullough and Deborah Rowe are enjoyed weekdays 3-5 p.m. on AM 1160 WYLL, a 50,000-watt station in Chicago, Ill., www.wyll.com. Kevin may be reached at kmc@wyll.com.

A product that might interest you:
Pat Buchanan`s "The Death of the West"

Home | Money | Entertainment | Links | Advertise | Search | Cartoons | Contact | Shop
All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com