|
|
|
"60 Minutes" Supports Sodomy, Bashes Boy Scouts April 1, 2001 Is this an April Fool's joke, or what?
Our last connection with the "mainstream media", which was already down to one hour per week, has now been severed. From this point forward, nobody in this family will be watching the jewish controlled government propaganda machine which is erroneously referred to as "news". "60 Minutes" is not "news". It is pure government propaganda. Rather than supporting the Boy Scouts of America in the suit they won against the admission of sodomites as members and troop leaders, "60 Minutes" supported LIE after LIE from fags:
Leslie Stahl is not just an idiot, she's a sodomite. We have always known that she's an idiot, but now it's nice to know for sure that she's a sodomite. She was at her shining, idiotic, sodomite best last night, which is why "60 Minutes" is finished in this family . By comparison, Pol Pot comes across as a harmless Girl Scout leader. He did far less damage to the fabric of his society than Leslie did to ours last night. Leslie, you have no moral compass. You have no right to be promoting an act on national television which is a sin and is against the law. If you support "tolerance", then tolerate the Holy Bible and the existing law. Sodomy is a sin and the Boy Scouts have every right to prohibit sinners from joining the Boy Scouts. We know that you know that by promoting sodomy on national television, millions of normal young boys who don't want to be associated with groups tainted by the sodomite brush could be denied a scouting experience. In order to "tolerate" the two percent of the population who are sodomites, you would deny the rights of the ninety eight percent who are not. You will not get away with it. It's unconscionable that you would support on national television the false claim from sodomites that it is heterosexual men who sexually molest boys. By every definition available--from the English dictionary, to written laws, to the Holy Bible--men who molest boys ARE, to be precise, sodomites. The Holy Bible and existing laws require that they be banished from society, not just from the Boy Scouts. Christians do not tolerate sodomites--they tolerate the Holy Bible--and the Holy Bible calls for capital punishment for sodomites. This was the law when this nation was founded, and this is the law which must be upheld, right now. It is not "hate" to ban sodomy from society, as you accused Congressman Rohrabacher of. It is the purest form of love. It protects the 98% of our children who are not sodomites from the 2% who are. It discourages the 2% who are sodomites from engaging in the very practice which KILLS them, which shaves an average of 30 years from their life expectancies, which spreads sexual diseases like AIDS, which makes open targets for ridicule and violence, which leads to their inevitible incarceration, which ultimately leads to their early death in our ponderous jails and prisons. By promoting sodomy, you are killing sodomites. You are attempting to create even more sodomy. You are attempting to discredit this entire country as well as the Boy Scouts who the LAW still protects from you sodomites. You will not get away with it. It's a crime for you to incite criminal activity. You're no less guilty of a crime than drivers of getaway cars convicted of murder because a bank guard died during the robbery. You're no less guilty of a crime than accomplices to murder who receive prison sentences equal to those of murderers themselves. Here is the penal code for sodomy in the state of New York which you are violating, Leslie: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/law82/art29.html 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent. 1. Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every offense defined in this article, except the offense of consensual sodo- my, that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. * 2. Lack of consent results from: (a) Forcible compulsion; or (b) Incapacity to consent; or (c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse, any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor`s conduct. * NB Effective until February 1, 2001 * 2. Lack of consent results from: (a) Forcible compulsion; or (b) Incapacity to consent; or (c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse, any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor`s conduct; or (d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.25, or sodomy in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time of the act of inter- course or deviate sexual intercourse, the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person in the actor`s situation would have understood such person`s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances. * NB Effective February 1, 2001 * 3. A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is: (a) less than seventeen years old;
And here are the results of your handiwork:
Source: National Opinion Research Center, emerge.pdf
|
               |
|
Modified Monday, July 13, 2009 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
