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
The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol...
Comments