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
Davis wrote in katharine the great, her 1979 unauthorized biography of katharine graham, owner of the washington post, that the cia ran an "operation mockingbird"
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKdavisD.htm Deborah Davis is a journalist who has published articles in the New York Times , Village Voice and Ramparts . In 1979 Davis published a book about Katharine Graham ( Katharine the Great ). The book also looked at the connections between Philip Graham and the Central Intelligence Agency . According to Davis the owner of the Washington Post was a key figure in Operation Mockingbird , a CIA program to influence the American media. According to Davis, Cord Meyer was Mockingbird's "principal operative". Davis also argued that Deep Throat was Richard Ober . Later, she claimed the source of this claim was a senior official in the CIA. As she pointed out in Katharine the Great : "The president also began to rely heavily upon the counsel of Richard Ober, Angleton's deputy, the man in the CIA most concerned with domestic counterintelligence, a...
Comments