The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, world-o-crap.com (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Friday, January 21, 2011

January 10, 2006 by s.z.


She's Concerned



In honor of the Alito hearings, the Washington Post ran a profile (" Expert Witness: Activist Lawyer Jan LaRue Is Carrying A Banner for Sam Alito in a Battle That's as Personal as It Is Political") of Concerned Women for America's chief counsel.  It's a largely sympathetic portrait.  Jan tell about being molested as a girl (the Post advises that "Few friends or family members can corroborate the tragic experiences in LaRue's youth,"  but I believe that at least some of it must have happened, because obviously something messed her up).  She explains how these experiences caused her to become a wild teen who dropped out of high school and got a job where she was forced to buy copies of Playboy for her bosses each month.  And then she got an abortion, got married, got divorced, got remarried, found Jesus, earned a law degree, and started working for religious-right law foundations until she ended up at Beverely LaHaye's outfit.  "LaRue uses her personal story to help explain why she has focused on fighting pornography," as she believes that porn fuels almost every sexual crime committed. 
Here's a snippet from the piece:
Sitting at her desk, LaRue is fresh from a panel on Alito where she says, with a playful smirk, she would like to see the Supreme Court put Roe v. Wade through a paper shredder and then set it afire with a blowtorch.
[...]
CWA supports Alito because it believes he'll vote to overturn Roe, says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

"The Concerned Women for America weren't satisfied with being 98 percent sure with Harriet Miers" that she would be a vote for overturning Roe, Gandy says. "They had to be 100 percent sure. With Alito they are 100 percent sure."

LaRue demurs. "I would be disappointed if he indicated how he would vote," she says.
Yeah, LaRue and the CWA will be shocked, SHOCKED if it turns out that Alito votes to overturn Roe.  They are just supporting him because they like his rulings on strip searches.

Anyway, to supplement this Wash Post piece, here are some highlights from Jan's writings.

In May 2004, Jan wrote about "Abu Ghraib and Pornography":
The photos coming out of Abu Ghraib prison depict conduct very similar to a genre of deviant and violent pornography available on countless professional and amateur porn Web sites. I’ve seen them.
[...]
Pornographers, their allies and fans will argue that there’s a difference between “acting” in pornography and the forced degradation and abuse pictured in the Abu Ghraib photos.
Yeah, only pornographers (or their allies or friends) see any difference between consenting to appear in a porn movie, and being forcibly abused while being held in a prison.

Editor’s note: The influential American Law Institute has issued a report calling for courts to ignore traditional marriage-based concerns when adjudicating family disputes. For instance, the ALI says a person’s homosexuality should be irrelevant in custody decisions and that unmarried and homosexual couples should be treated exactly the same as married couples in divorce or alimony settlements. ... Here is CWA Chief Counsel Jan LaRue’s take on it.
The legal philosophy of the American Law Institute (ALI) continues to be heavily influenced by the perverse work of discredited sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey. When his first book was published in 1948, the ALI used it to influence state legislatures to weaken criminal laws with respect to sex crimes, including sex crimes against children.
Jan doesn't cite any examples of how Kinsey's work was used to weaken laws against sex crimes against children, but it if the ALI is in favor of giving child custody to homosexuals, then you can just bet that they are all Kinsey fans who will next be making laws lowering the age of consent to 4.
This became the foundation for decriminalizing "consenting adult" conduct. Thus, many states decriminalized consenting adult sodomy, based largely on the foundation of a crackpot sexual deviant.
Yes, if it weren't for the crackpot sexual deviant Kinsey, society would never have started to believe that homosexuals are people too.  He should rot in hell for this.
Anyone doubting that should read Dr. Judith Reisman’s book, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences.
And anyone doubting that Dr. Judith Reisman is a crackpot should read Dr. Judith's work.
Law is supposed to express a collective morality. The fact that some couples shack up may be reality, but that doesn’t mean the majority of Americans believe such relationships should have the rights, benefits, approval and legitimacy of legal recognition.
The ALI's report said that "unmarried couples who break up after long relationships should be covered under traditional divorce, alimony, and child support laws."  But since the unmarried couples were living in sin, then clearly the law shouldn't give them the same rights to split up as married couples who split up.  No, instead of using traditional divorce laws to mediate their break up, the judge should confiscate all their property, fine them both heavily, and place their kids in an orphanage.  THAT will teach them to live outside of Jan's collective morality!
The ALI study also concludes that if a spouse has committed adultery, it should not affect a judge’s decision about alimony or marital property. This means the innocent party is treated no differently from the one who broke the marriage vows.
Because the court system should be used to punish sins, such as adultery.  (I assume that Jan feels that the judge should also take into account other sins, such as taking the Lord's name in vain, and breaking the Sabbath, when deciding which party gets the marital property.)
It also says that "a parent’s sexual orientation should not be a factor in decisions on child custody, and that domestic partnerships should be treated like marriage in many important respects." This philosophy is void of traditional moral considerations or expression. It provides no legitimate and forceful argument against group marriage, bigamy, homosexual adultery, bestiality or pedophilia.
It also provides no legitimate and forceful argument against necrophilia, cannibalism, murder, and genocide.  So, if judges are allowed to give child custody to homosexual parents, then it's like they are saying that what Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler did was perfectly okay.  
Instead of recognizing that children are best served in an intact family with a mom and dad, the study urges legal recognition of a "de facto parent," such as "the lesbian partner of a child’s biological mother."
The ALI report is called "Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution," and it deals with divorces and break-ups of long-term relationships -- so I don't know exactly how Jan's point applies (unless Jan felt that the ALI should have recommended that children from a broken marriage or relationship will be given to a deserving intact family with a mom and a dad). 
Although the authors claim that the ALI "does not encourage domestic partnership or cohabitation as an alternative to marriage," this study aids the strategy to legalize same-sex "marriage." Advocates of same-sex "marriage" can’t get a state legislature to do that so they accomplish it bit by bit, getting the benefits of marriage granted to civil unions. Once that is accomplished in full, the argument against same-sex "marriage" becomes impotent.
Yes, once same-sex couples get all the advantages of divorce, then they have nearly achieved their goal of devaluing your marriage and forcing your children to marry household pets.  Homosexuals should have to EARN that divorce like everybody else: by being straight!
There’s also a very telling comment about something else driving this report, i.e., "redistribute income and wealth." This is another icon of the liberal legal establishment.
Because "liberal legal establishment" is just another term for "Marxist third column." 

Oh, and that "redistributing of income and wealth" is a way of assigning spousal support and dividing up assets.  It's based on the idea that one party may have suffered monetary losses caused by the dissolution of the marriage, and the other party should help compensate for such losses.  An example of such a loss would be "An earning capacity loss incurred during marriage but continuing after dissolution and arising from one spouse’s disproportionate share, during marriage, of the care of marital children."  This certainly sounds like communism to me, and I can why Jan would be opposed to it, since it only encourages women to let their husbands divorce them.

Now, here's Jan on the American Library Association's refusal to support Internet filtering in public libraries.
In Meredith Wilson's delightful musical, “The Music Man,” set in River City, Iowa in 1912, the fast-talking con man, Prof. Harold Hill [...] leads the townsfolk in a song about the trouble their boys will encounter at the pool hall: “Ya got trouble, right here in River City. Ya got trouble I say, and it starts with T and it rhymes with P, and it stands for pool.”

A remake of “The Music Man,” is now playing on Broadway. If it were current with the times, the good and proper Marian the librarian would no longer be in charge of River City's library. And the trouble that starts with T and rhymes with P would stand for porn. But the porn isn't across town from the library like the pool hall was—the porn is in the library.
The porn is calling from inside the library!!!

And here's Jan on the Harriet Miers nomination:
It’s time for those who rarely breathe anything but the rarefied air of D.C.’s short-list parties to heed the immortal words of Professor Harold Hill: “Well, ya got trouble, my friend. Right here, I say trouble right here in River City. Why, sure, I’m a billiard player Certainly mighty proud to say. … We surely got trouble with a capital ‘T’ and that rhymes with ‘P’ and that stands for ‘pool.’”

There’s new trouble in River City, my friends, and it starts with “M” and that stands for “Miers.”  
But if you buy band instruments for your kids, then they will forget all about Miers, and their souls will be safe.

Yeah, that con man Hill really gets around, doesn't he?  Right now, I'm sure he's saying something about how we have trouble, right here in Washington, D.C city, and it starts with "T" and that rhymes with "D," and that stands for "Democrats who are being mean to Judge Alito." 

Or something.

So let us conclude with a portion from Jan's position report (the first in a never-ending series) on how the Left isn't fair to right-wing ideologues who get nominated for the Supreme Court.
There's a classic scene in the movie Patton starring George C. Scott. After his defeat in North Africa of the Nazi General Erwin Rommel, known as the "Desert Fox," Patton is seen standing in a jeep waving a book exclaiming, "Rommel, you magnificent b******! I read your book!"
No. We're not calling or equating the left with Nazis or b*******. Just as we're not calling them magnificent either. The point is that Patton knew the victory was due primarily to his reading of Rommel's book about warfare, Infantry Attacks.
Yes, the Left is Trouble, and that starts with "T" and that rhymes with "B," and that stands for "b******."
The left's tactics have a long, ignoble history. They create dismay by creating fear and anxiety about "extremist" nominees who they claim will deprive you of constitutional rights if they are put on the Supreme Court. "Chicken Little" is a rank amateur in creating alarm by comparison.
[...]
In case you think who sits on our courts doesn't concern you, consider the June 23 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court that might result in you receiving a letter in the mail from your city council that reads: "We think your home and property would be put to better use as a hotel and health club, so start making plans to move out."
Damn those liberal b******s who try to create fear and anxiety by claiming that extremist Republican nominees will deprive you of your rights!  You'd better not believe anything those Democrats say, or their activist judges will confiscate your home, your property, and your dog. 

Just ask Patton ... I mean Jan -- she read their book, and so knows all about them.

Anyway, I think that Jan is a perfect example of an Alito supporter (like the Post implied), and you should pay heed to her words.  (Oh, and in the Post photo, I think Jan is the one on the left.)

4:35:12 AM    

No comments:

Post a Comment