There is a TV documentary about a notorious crime from 1997 called The North Hollywood Shootout. Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu, dressed in heavy body armor and brandishing assault weapons, robbed the Bank of America branch on Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Los Angeles of $300,000. Over the next hour, the pair held off the Los Angeles Police Department with heavy calibre fire. More than 1,300 rounds of ammunition were expended during the exchange. Surrounded, both criminals ultimately died – Phillips committed suicide – while no police officers were killed.
In the course of one recent program about the shootout, one commentator refers to Matasareanu as “Emil”. This is quite common in American jurisprudence. Watch any real-crime TV shows, or even fictional ones, or news coverage of real crimes, and you frequently will see criminals referred to by their first names.
On a separate note: Have you ever seen parents kissing their children on the lips?
“Huh?! What does that have to do with a shootout in California?!” you may wonder.
Yes, parents kissing their children on the lips! It is like a peck on the cheek, except that it is on the lips. This is a common practice in America today. You can see it frequently on television and in many public places.
So what do these two practices have in common – referring to a criminal by his first name, and parents kissing their children on the lips.
They both come out of the socialist left. The soft treatment of criminals has been a goal of liberals for decades. And the involvement of children in sexual acts has been too.
Naturally liberals will protest that it is a stretch to equate those little pecks on the lips with child sexual abuse. And they are dead wrong, even lying. It is not only sexual in nature, but incestuous when it involves adults’ own children.
With increasing acceptance of these little kisses, liberals are slowly introducing adults, and the public, to sexual contact with children – even their own – just as calling a criminal by his first name incrementally legitimizes and ‘softens’ criminals at the expense of the law and of crime victims.
Kissing children on the lips is part of the Pervert Culture (adultery, promiscuity, abortion, pornography etc.) being advocated by liberals, the same liberals who are doing everything in their power to thwart child-protection laws like Jessica’s Law. Many Democrats and liberal newspapers across America either have dragged their feet on Jessica’s Law, or, as in Massachusetts, tried to block it outright. Because the far-left socialists who control the Democrat party are pro sexual perversion in every way for every age group.
Why? Because many liberals are angry, insecure and troubled people who need as much pleasure, indulgence and control as possible in their lives to ease their pain.
Here is what Massachusetts Democrat state representative and attorney James Fagan said about children who might testify against rapists if a tough law was passed: “I’m gonna rip them apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
So “compassionate”! So “tolerant”! This is typical of the inner thinking of the radicals who control much of the Democrat party. This is not an anomaly.
What is Jessica’s Law? It is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law, the Jessica Lunsford Act, adopted in 42 states now, that provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years and lifetime electronic monitoring for any adult convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a child less than 12 years old. The act is named for a 9-year-old Florida girl who was raped and murdered – she was buried alive – in February 2005 by a convicted sex offender who operated unknown to police.
The law was proposed federally in 2005 but never was passed by the House. Democrats have controlled the House since January 2007, and thus it expectedly has not been reintroduced.
Democrats, usually looking out for the criminal and the sex offender and never for the crime victim, have been saying that the law is “seriously flawed”, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Meanwhile much of the population in ultra-liberal Vermont sympathized with, or was ambivalent about Vermont judge Edward Cashman’s 2006 decision to suspend all but 60 days of a 10-years-to-life sentence give to Mark Hulett, the repeated rapist of a girl he started assaulting when she was only 6 years old.
This is seen as no big deal in a place like Vermont, which also was the first state to legalize civil unions among homosexuals.
What do these two issues have in common?
Answer: The legitimization of homosexuality is part of an erosion of the moral and legal underpinnings of society that includes strict protection of children. You will generally find child protection marginalized the most in liberal places.
So why do liberals think that Jessica’s Law is “flawed”?
Because it does two things: Deals harshly with criminals and deals harshly with perverts and sex offenders, both of whom are protected by liberalism. Liberals think that everyone should be “treated” and nobody “punished”, which was the case in Vermont. In many cases, they simply do not think that perversion on any level is wrong. That is why some on the political left have fought to decriminalize the possession of child pornography and why the American Civil Liberties Union has sought to defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a pro-pedophilia group.
And liberals point to the lifelong stigma on sex offenders under the harsh laws, and several well-publicized attacks on offenders. They never consider that child molesters should very well live under suspicion and surveillance for the type of behavior they have engaged in.
Missouri “civil rights” attorney – uh-oh, there’s that phrase again, “civil rights”, which is supposed to freeze us in our tracks – Arthur Benson says the state’s Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. “violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced.”
“Has no express purpose”? Ask Jessica Lunsford’s father about such an “express purpose”? If the police had been tracking Jessica’s murderer, she would be alive today.
Worldwide socialists are attempting to lower the age of sexual consent, while conservatives and Christians are fighting to protect children everywhere, including the unborn. This is one of the reasons that liberals are fighting for unlimited abortion rights – to keep children, both born and unborn, as easy targets for any kind of angry and selfish behavior that adults wish to engage in.
This fits in with the world pattern in which socialists are attempting to legitimize myriad criminal activities, including those by governments, for instance by calling Castro the “president” of Cuba and not the dictator that he is. They frequently refer to him as “Fidel”.
Castro has not given one inch of freedom to his people in 50 years, and liberals continue to say that the United States should recognize him. Many left-wing Europeans take vacations in Cuba specifically to feed the ruthless regime there. Because to a liberal, there is no such thing as criminal behavior.
Until it affects them, that is, when one of their own is murdered as was George Tiller, the late-term abortion practitioner who killed 60,000 late-term fetuses in a career that made him a multimillionaire. Then, of course, all life – and all people – must be protected.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.