The California appeals court ruled that libraries must not use computer
filters to disallow kids from viewing Internet pornography. A San Jose
Mercury News editorial inferred that the First Amendment was invoked so
the adult’s right to view porn would not be encroached.
One can see the Civil Liberties Union-who won the case- standing with hand over heart as the Constitution upheld this new right.
If
Internet smutt is authorized why not have smutty magazines lying around
the newspaper section. Also, we mustn’t forget the kid’s right to check
out dirty magazines and videos.
It would never get that far because
parents don’t allow their children into porn shops. The libraries
funding would soon be voted down.
Why aren’t parents angered by library Internet obscenity? It is the same reason abortion is legal while infanticide is not.
Babies
and dirty magazines can be seen, but babies in the womb and Internet
porn usually are unseen by parents. Of course, the media could show the
American public killings of unborn babies and kids looking at public
funded Internet smutt.
But, the national media wants to preserve
our Constitutional rights so they bans or prohibits those dangerous
images. Thus, for the sake of the First amendment they in practicality
prohibit our First Amendment rights.
All the news and drama
stories-on primetime- are about courageous feminist saving women from
back street abortions. Or, valiant publishers fighting against hypocrite
who would destroy our freedom.
They can hide the truth because
the evidence is not easy to see. As with Clinton, if not caught red
handed they lie. When caught they will spin it in their favor.
If
you ask the representatives of the media: why isn’t it, also, a child’s
right to check out porno magazines and videos? Why is it wrong to show
killed unborn babies when it was right to present dead G.I. in the
Vietnam War? Why is it right to take hidden cameras into Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, but wrong to use hidden cameras to catch kids
watching public funded smutt? They will do a Clinton, if you ask these
questions.
As Clinton switched from, ”I don’t know that [Monica]
woman,” to” Sex is not that big a deal.” They will switch from; “We are
only trying to preserve our Constitutional rights,” to the classic
Kenneth Starr spin,” Why are you so obsessed with sex?”
We will
never get a straight answer from the cultural elite, so we must ask
ourselves the questions. How perverted is our country when we allow a
president to sexually abuse a girl just out of high school? How corrupt
are our courts and media when they promote a child’s right to
pornography.
Click here for Credit Card and Amazon Order of Fred Martinez's book "Hidden Axis":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1410746186/qid=1099936755/sr=11-1/ref
September 15, 2020 Everyone knows that sexual predator ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick is a liar. His whole life was a lie of betrayal of the most sacred vows he took and the violation of the moral tenets of the Catholic faith which he desecrated. Most people don't realize that part of this desecration of lies included lying for "gravely sinful" Democrats like Joe Biden. McCarrick protected Biden when then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later to be Pope Benedict XVI) wrote that bishops were not to admit to Communion politicians like "gravely sinful" Biden who supports the killing of unborn babies. McCarrick lied for politicians like Biden by ignoring the important parts of the Ratzinger letter and told bishops not to ignore the Catholic Church law. Last year, Fr. Robert Morey denied Holy Communion to the “gravely sinful” Biden following a "2004 decree signed jointly by the bishops of ...
Comments