What’s worse is, this creepy fella right here made the video public for the first time…
The Obama campaign has put out an official video targeting young adults that compares voting to having sex for the first time. There really are not words to describe the ad, but it gels with the Obama campaign theme that this year’s election is all about sex, birth control and abortion.
In a creepy manner, Jim Messina, Campaign Manager, Obama for America, tweeted the video — making it public for the first time.
“Your first time voting is important. Trust @lenadunham—you are ready,” he said.
Dunham, something of a vulgar performance artist, tweets out gems like this one: “My biggest sexual fantasy is that someone busts in when I’m singing in the shower and yells “girl, where you been hiding that voice?”
Yes, because voting for the narcissist-in-chief equates to a sexual experience.
Word of advice libs – if voting for Obama is like having sex … you’re doing it wrong!
Gawker may have never produced such an offensive article in their long offensive history as the one they posted on Friday by Cord Jefferson.
The title says it all:
Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children
Not once in the lengthy piece does Jefferson refer to the act in it’s proper terminology – rape. Worse, he categorizes the act of raping children as a ‘sexual orientation’, treating it as a harmless choice no different than homosexuality, as opposed to a violent crime.
The article is sick and disgusting on so many levels. It begins with a sympathetic story involving a man named Terry, who has been convicted of raping his seven-year-old niece. Fitting with the theme that this was a sexual act and not a crime, Jefferson attempts to create sympathy for the rapist – portraying him as a religious man who was the victim of an abusive marriage, and describing what happens with his niece as an actual ‘relationship’.
As Jefferson explains, “it’s not easy to listen to Terry talk about the time he had sex with a seven-year-old girl”. I would imagine it would be infinitely harder to listen to the little girl’s version. Or her parents story.
Terry, Jefferson then explains, “fell for his niece and began a sexual relationship with her”.
The rest of the story is rather graphic.
The problem here is that the author doesn’t seem able to comprehend the difference between rape and sex, and he is rationalizing the behavior of pedophiles. As an example, at one point Jefferson describes the rapist’s mindset – “I had the thought that I would never hurt her and that she would grow up trusting me.”
This is such a typical behavior by pedophiles that it’s hard to imagine anyone could write such a statement without recognizing it as “grooming”, a technique used by child rapists to gain the trust of their child victims.
Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters also points out that Jefferson wonders why pedophiles “don’t enjoy the same kind of tolerance” as other people who may simply be attracted to “busty women” or “tall men”.
Holy hell! In what parallel universe does a sane individual not recognize the difference between being attracted to busty women and small children?
Sheppard also points out that a case for tolerance can be made, according to the article, because ‘Jesus would embrace pedophiles’.
Warner Todd Huston points out in his analysis that this simply isn’t so:
Gawker writer Cord should be ashamed of himself for having said that Jesus would “embrace” pedophiles. As the website Poor Richard’s News notes (by way of Newsbusters), the Bible does not excuse pedophilia..
But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea! — Matthew 18: 6
“Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin, not the embrace of it,” the site notes. “The Bible is very clear that while all sins can be forgiven, Jesus never ever embraces the sin itself. He made no bones about the punishment for harming a child.”
There is a special section in hell for child rapists, no doubt.
Gawker needs to apologize for this piece immediately and let the public know that Jefferson’s pro-pedophilia platform will not be tolerated in their pages again.
Terminate this sick, sick man immediately.
Likely not. After all, it was just a short time ago that the headline glaring from the cover of Newsweek was asking, “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?”
This is also the same magazine who’s post-election analysis in 2008 included a prediction that there would be a baby boom based on the excitement, and subsequent increase in sex, that would result from Obama’s victory. No, I’m not kidding. Yes, I also just threw up in my mouth.
But the latest article which gets feature status on this week’s cover of Newsweek is a stunner nonetheless.
The title? Hit the Road, Barack.
The subtitle? Why We Need a New President.
Does it get any more honest than that?
Author Niall Ferguson then poses this question and answer:
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.
Ferguson then goes into a little more detail as to why the GOP ticket is the only hope.
I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”
Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.
Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.
In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.
This certainly isn’t an indicator that Newsweek is shifting it’s policies to to the right. It is after all, a lone article. Several liberal pieces of tripe are surely in queue in the coming months.
But the question remains, how bad does it have to be for a hard liberal magazine to shift focus even for a day, and take a hard shot at the President?
You read that correctly. The dredges of the Earth otherwise known as the Occupy movement actually held a protest in support of child sex trafficking, including one woman’s sign which read ‘End Police Terror Against Minor + Adult Sex Workers’.
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said ‘God bless them’?
Let me channel my inner Jeremiah Wright and say – No, not God bless the Occupy movement, God damn the Occupy movement. Well this little faction anyway can go to hell…
The protesters mostly were members of Occupy Oakland Patriarchy, a group within the overall Occupy movement tasked with overthrowing our civilization’s “patriarchy.”
The conference which so infuriated them was called HEAT Watch, short for the National Human Exploitation And Trafficking Watch Conference.
If there’s one issue that unites Americans of all political stripes, it’s the sexual enslavement of children. Whatever our opinions on other issues, we all agree that sex trafficking and the prostituting of children is an outrage and a tragedy. Thus, conference attendees included liberal, moderate and conservative politicians; progressive nonprofit organizations; law enforcement groups; religious leaders; and (according to the conference Web site) “social services, medical providers, mental health, education, probation, and community-based organizations.” In short: Everybody.
Everybody, that is, except Occupy Wall Street, who somehow found a way to oppose the abolition of child sexual slavery.
Here are a couple of images from the rally, courtesy of Zombie…
One stating that sex-trafficking enforcement is raaaacist:
Stunning… He always seemed like such a rock-solid family man.
A call girl working for alleged “Millionaire Madam” Anna Gristina told investigators she was paid to have sex with former U.S. Sen. John Edwards when he was in New York raising money for his failed presidential bid, DNAinfo has learned.
Edwards is the first big name to surface in connection to Gristina’s alleged prostitution scheme run out of an Upper East Side apartment…
… According to “On The Inside” sources, Edwards allegedly hooked up with one of Gristina’s high-end hookers in 2007 when the dashing pol from North Carolina brought his then high-flying presidential campaign to the Big Apple.
The one-night fling allegedly took place at an Upper East Side hotel suite and was arranged by an aide with help from a New Yorker familiar with Gristina’s prostitution ring, sources said.The prostitute claiming to have slept with Edwards provided a detailed, first-hand account of their encounter to investigators in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in 2008 after they began probing Gristina’s operation, sources said.
A report at Politico indicates that Edwards is denying the claims:
John Edwards on Thursday vehemently denied a report that he had been named as a client in New York City’s so-called “Soccer Mom Madam” prostitution scheme…
… One of Edward’s lawyers, Allison Van Laningham, said Thursday that the report’s accusations against Edwards were false.
“Mr. Edwards categorically denies that he was involved with any prostitute or service. These allegations are false, defamatory, and he puts those who would publish or repeat them on notice that they acting with actual malice by reporting or repeating them,” Van Laningham said in a statement.
The Edwards team has also demanded a retraction of the DNAinfo’s story.
Of course, he also categorically denied having an affair and fathering a love child with Rielle Hunter.
Were Occupiers included in this poll, and if so does it count when you’re by yourself in your mother’s basement?
… if you believe the results of a new Match.com survey, the truth isn’t just more subtle, it’s the opposite extreme. Men, it seems, are the ones who want to settle down. Bad sex is a deal-breaker for women. Gay men are the true romantics. And, apparently, it’s conservative Republicans who are getting the most from their bedroom rendezvous.
Republican Lead the Polls—In Orgasm
The stereotype about liberal Democrats really is true. They can’t accomplish anything.
Must be another slow news day at the Washington Post. And because of it, I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
The headline at NewsBusters says it all:
WaPo Tells of Protester ‘Cuddle Puddles’ and ‘Occubabies’ on the Way
Well, once you overlook the rampant head lice, lack of soap, and openly defecating on police cars, what’s not to love?
NewsBusters Tim Graham reports:
The Post’s Sunday front page was dominated by the headline “LOVE AMID THE TENTS.” The biggest “news” of the day was casual sex, hippie-style.
A gag-inducing two minute video on their site can be seen below:
Graham continues –
Post reporter Annie Gowen proclaimed that “As the Occupy movement enters its fourth month locally, it has spawned two full-service camps, more than 100 arrests and an ongoing constitutional debate over the right to free speech on federal land. But a combustible combination of youthful energy, enthusiasm for shared ideals and tight living quarters has given rise to something else: Romance. Lots and lots of romance.”
And the Washington Post went on from there…
Medics at both D.C. protests routinely hand out condoms. At McPherson Square, there are also pregnancy tests — at least one of which has come back positive. Indeed, Occupiers are beginning to joke that a string of Occubabies may appear come June…
Occubabies? No word on whether or not STD’s will heretofore be referred to as Occucrabs.