As a well-earned round of I-told-you-so mockery greets Jussie Smollett’s arrest, the predictable response from the Left has been: “Oh, yeah? Well, what about Christopher Paul Hasson?”
Hasson is locked up on drug and weapons charges and is being treated as a “domestic terrorist.” A whole raft of additional charges is almost certainly on the way. He is done. Prosecutors — including federal ones appointed by Donald Trump — are going to bury that guy.
What do the progressives want the authorities to do? Build a prison cell inside his prison cell and another one inside of that to create a turducken of felonious intent? Execute him without trial? Parade him through the streets?
The guy is going away for a long time, possibly forever. His conviction will be universally cheered. As it should be.
Unlike in the matter of Jussie Smollett, you aren’t going to see a lot of serious-minded chin-strokers on cable-news shows saying, “Well, I don’t approve of the crime, of course, but you have to admit that Hasson had a point.” Because nobody believes that with the exception of a few fruity sandwich-boarders and atavistic cellar-dwellers whose presence is almost statistically inevitable in a nation of 320 million people.
So, yeah: What about Hasson?
@kitt #38:
I just picked the most recent case to hit the wires. It was a case where the State Dept. invented a DNA rule (that came from nowhere) just to mess with a married gay couple. No other reason under the sun.
My first question to you is: How many more cases like that (they are ALL individual cases, since in EACH one of them represents an individual plaintiff who sued and won) will satisfy you that there is a pattern of government discrimination against gays? 20? 100? Because they are out there in the public record. Gay media publish them monthly, both victories and defeats.
Then my second question to you is: Can you offer a SINGLE (one) example of a case where the Trump administration has sided with a gay plaintiff in a discrimination suit? Any “friend-of-the-court” filings in support of gay plaintiff’s position? I’ll save you the trouble of looking. There are none. Not one. Never. How about anything AT ALL that HINTS that gays deserve the same rights that white straight males have? In writing? Criminee, we didn’t even pass the “Equal Rights Amendment for Women, and we sure as heck didn’t pass a shred of the legislation that presumed to grant equal housing and employment rights to gays.
Personally, I was exceedingly surprised when the SCOTUS granted us marriage privileges, and that in turn has opened other doors. But there is a large segment of the American population that resists these changes, in large part because of their faith in what the Bible teaches on the subject. Understandable, and also tolerable. What I cannot understand is the denial that such resistance influences how these people – AND the government that represents them in particular – actually treat gay people.
It isn’t a perfect world, and discrimination is EVERYWHERE. Back and forth, up and down, black and white, gay and straight, one religion to another and on and on. Even Despicable Me admits that everybody discriminates. I’m not hoping to see it eradicated. It is hard enough to get someone who believes that they are perfect to just acknowledge that it DOES exist.
Case in point.
@kitt:
Today’s example of government LGBT discrimination:
Kansas, of course.
FYI: Cookie problem may be fixed. Computer chewed on cookies for the better part of an hour.
@George Wells: What has this to do with the President?
What was in he horrible bill, will it stand up in a challenge?
Every state has the right to pass bills of any type as long as they fit the US constitution. If it stands then the mentally ill can leave that state for another.
I figured your memory was stuffed to overflowing its all connected to the total lack of privacy and selling you and your data as a commodity, without your knowledge.
There are many sites that will not allow me access due to my privacy settings, so I just look elsewhere. Now with all those cookies eaten your puter might be diabetic 😉
@George Wells:
“Hateful”?
@Deplorable Me: Yup that state will no longer participate in the forced extra rights, the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved.
It will not force any establishment to cater to the idea a man says he is a woman and can go into the YWCA locker room, when little girls are getting ready for swim class.
Nor will they stop him if that establishment allows it.
Mentally ill people always see hate unless they are totally catered to, both in language and actions you must adjust your morals to fit theirs.
@kitt:
Trump had nothing to do with the Kansas bill. Perhaps one might suggest that his lack of support for LGBT rights and his administration’s relentless erosion of them at the federal level encourages states and localities to do the same thing.
The Kansas bill seeks to Prohibit the State from supporting in any way any religions other than the mainstream ones, effectively cutting out those religions that serve marginalized minorities (gays). It specifically stated the opinion that homosexual marriage is wrong, while incredibly explaining that its intent is to validate the separation of church and state! (This being incredible since the proscription against homosexuality is Biblically founded, while our secular Law now respects it. One would think that a government measure would not side with the Church if separation is intended.)
Stand up? Probably. Any challenge in Kansas would likely only reach the appellate level, and the responsible circuit would probably agree with lower courts that lean conservative in the region.
And thanks for that “mentally Ill” dig. When contributors here at FA feel compelled to resort to personal insults, it telegraphs the message that their argument has failed.
P.S. My computer doesn’t have diabetes, I do. (Thanks dear ol’ long-departed Dad.)
@George Wells: Personal digs? really George, Where does that State promote say baptists? or any other religion? Must you be a Catholic to purchase land there? Give that a bit of thought, before you state they must do what the community wants at any government level.
My opinions on the mental state of certain leanings were not directed at you, I am not psychic. I would not see any real rights taken away but nor give you extra rights because of your sexual preferences. I also dont like the extra rights some of increased melanin are given.
Equal rights should be just that, and the government should not step in to alter the playing field, only to see the rights are not infringed upon.
I’m a victim shes a victim hes a victim wouldnt you like to be a victim toooooo.
@kitt:
You are in good voice today.
Boy, that cookie cutter fix did the trick. Pity, though, as now my computer doesn’t know who I am…
@George Wells: Lose your place in Candy Crush? The horror!
@Deplorable Me:
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that this declaration of a “separation of church and state” said nothing about separating itself from institutionalized religions? Why not declare an across-the-board separation from ALL religions? That would cover religions that are hostile toward homosexuality as well as ones that are friendly. Kansas state’s SELECTIVE “separation” has the effect of establishing traditional Christianity as it’s State religion, benefitting traditional Christians at the expense of citizens who believe differently. There is potentially fertile ground to sue on the basis of religious discrimination in that. There is ALSO grounds to sue if it is found that Kansas has not divorced itself from any and all manner of funding, promoting and indorsing heterosexual marriage, as its intention for Kansas to “no longer be in the parody marriage funding and endorsement business” is clearly an affront to the Obergefell decision of the United States Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see what the courts do with this bill if it gets signed into law.
@George Wells: They aren’t “hostile” to homosexuality, they merely regard it with neutrality. Sorry, that’s all anyone gets.
@George Wells: Most U.S. states had state religions at the time of the First Amendment. The First Amendment prevented the Federal Government from creating its own state-religion to trump those of the states. In more recent vintage, the Supreme Court has adopted the principle of separation of church and state so that now the First Amendment prohibits that which it was designed to protect.
Educational system has long promoted humanism, Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.
Does school ever teach Creationism over Darwin, both are unproven theories.
To include every provision may confuse the intent of the law.
Perhaps the law can have a language change, but didnt the governor already sign it?
If it is already law then off to the courts to see if special rights can be obtained.
@kitt #59:
Oh, but would that be true.
Guess what, Kitt?
The Government has said that you CAN’T be discriminated against if you are Black or white.
The Government has said that you CAN’T be discriminated against if you are male or female.
The Government has said that you CAN’T be discriminated against if you are Christian or Hebrew or Muslim or atheist or any OTHER religion.
The Government has said that you CAN’T be discriminated against if you are old or young.
The Government has said that you CAN’T be discriminated against if you are a veteran or not.
Not in Housing, Not in Employment, not in public services. Not in any aspect of life such as the government has a say in how citizens treat each other. You are protected from discrimination on the basis of who you are. And by virtue of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation there-of, that includes what you believe as well as your age, your job and your genotype.
You are somewhere in how many of the above categories? ALL OF THEM.
More importantly, you are a member of no OTHER group that would automatically disqualify you from the government’s protections against discrimination. YOU have NOT been singled out for a SPECIAL exemption that allows anybody and everbody to discriminate AGAINST YOU. gays have been and still are.
Gay people are not asking for anything SPECIAL. They are asking to NOT be excluded from the same protections from discrimination in housing, employment and public services that you already enjoy. Making pretend that they want something else is a smokescreen employed for the purpose of hiding animus. Nothing else. “Despicable Me” likes to argue that if gays are given the same protections against discrimination that HE enjoys, that takes away HIS right to discriminate against them. He loses nothing else… and that’s his best argument. That he has a RIGHT to discriminate, and he doesn’t want to lose it.
@George Wells: So still on the old victim band wagon.
I dont care, how awful you imagine things are, some one will always bitch no matter what is done or if nothing is done.
We cant go back in time.
I do not really care about your sexual preference, I do not have to personally accept it as normal. I dont want to see anything bad happen to anyone no one mistreated. Welcome for a cup of coffee and crumble cake, buy the house next door ect.
If you knowing how I think dont want any of my crumby cake thats ok too.
This whole thread as gone off the rails.
@kitt:
Mark these words from another vet about George on a different thread:
That’s what George does. He hijacks threads to promote his “complaints” and how unfair everyone else is to him (and his ilk) because he’s queer.
Make no mistake; gays don’t want equal rights. They want more. They want to force others, by any means necessary, to cater to their life style. Don’t want to bake a “wedding” cake with two guys on top? You will get sued into bankruptcy. Adhere to your Biblical beliefs and support traditional marriage? They will go after your job, your reputation and will destroy your life.
George is just another member of the Gaystapo.
One of my favorite writers (a former gay man raised by lesbians) wrote this not long ago:
” The gay community enables abuse. If you speak publicly about how the community harmed you, they double down on the abuse by destroying your career and reputation in the public square.”
True words, that.
@retire05:
Not until someone else opens that can or worms. I’ll stay on topic until some hateful and libelous innuendo like “George of teenage boys and donkey fame” gets posted. I don’t answer that sort of trash in kind because doing so is beneath me. But neither will I turn my cheek in silence. If you open with a personal attack, I counter with a factual rebuttal.
Every time someone dredges up the nonsense that gays want “special” rights, I will remind them that gays are singled out in myriad state laws for exclusion from discrimination protections. That list I gave above proves the point. Discriminating against women or Christians or old people or veterans or blacks is bad. Only discrimination against gays is OK. That is “special” treatment that gays DO NOT WANT.
@retire05:
This morning, I have a total of nine posts showing in the thread tally. NINE.
Of them, this one is the only post that addresses anything “gay,” and it would not but for you and others dredging that subject up. If you don’t like talking about gay issues, don’t bring them up.
@George Wells:
When did I take such a position? I won’t muddle up the question with a lot of other writing until you can answer that one.
@Despicable Me:
It was two years ago. You argued that the problem with giving a right to someone who previously did not have it – like giving the right to marry to gays – necessarily meant that someone else correspondingly lost a right. With respect to the marriage issue, heterosexuals lost the exclusivity of the marriage contract. It was sullied by the addition of what the State of Kansas called “parody marriages.” “Redteam” made the same argument.
I do not keep hardcopy of Flopping Aces thread content, and I am unable to access old threads, so I can’t prove that you or anyone else said anything at all. If you DON’T now subscribe to the above-mentioned argument (or if you never did), then please accept my apology for suggesting that you did. If you don’t hold that objection, then what IS your objection, not to “special” rights, but to equal rights for gays.
@George Wells: The only argument I have EVER made regarding gay “marriage” is that the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, is between a man and a woman. I also state that I don’t object to the unions, but don’t call them marriage, because that they are not. I have NEVER argued about losing a “right” to discriminate, though that right IS inherent.
If I went to a bakery owned by blacks and asked them to make me a cake with “NI**ERS ARE WORTHLESS ANIMALS AND SHOULD BE KILLED” and they refused, should I have the right to drag them into court and bankrupt them for not doing what I wanted? Does one person’s beliefs have the right to negate someone else’s?
Should people lose their jobs or have their businesses shut down simply because they do not agree with gay “marriage”? Destroying people’s lives because they haven’t yet been forced to accept their ideology appears to be a “right” gays feel they have.
@Deplorable Me: Just march right in and insist the Muslim owned bakery make you a bacon cake, demand it, a cake covered in bacon roses with a little piggy topper.
@kitt: That was done with a gay wedding cake, and the Muslim baker refused. Yet, no activists sought him out and insisted he make it or tried to destroy his business. Those guys shoot back, you know.
Media seems pretty quiet on the Hasson case no one is giving him a microphone to tell his side of this. They put files in Cheryl Attkisons computer his arsonal basically pathetic for a basic prepper, there are plenty of people that are into the thought pattern of reverse racism being rampant, even a designed white genocide. Right now white women of birth giving age comprise 2% of the earth population. Whites in general 6 or 7%. Our countries seem to be the only place people want to migrate. Majority of EUs migrants are Muslim males of fighting age. They also want to change our countries, impose the failed systems they migrated away from. The government is running as all the time to be prepared have a plan, is it so surprising some are, but do they have to agree with the liberal agenda to be a non threat?
Do you get the logic of we need the illegal immigrant for workers but its wrong to have a big family of domestic bred workers?
@Deplorable Me #72:
You presume an agenda I do not share. I agree that discrimination exists, cannot be eradicated, and IS protected under the Constitution’s religious freedom protections. I think that is basically what you have already said, and that I have already asserted my agreement with it, but since you revisit it as if I haven’t made myself clear, I’ll try again.
What I have been addressing is the false claim that “special” rights are my goal. I have provided a rational explanation of how the rights that I advocate are only the same rights that everyone else has.
When the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights make lofty pronouncements concerning all men (people) being created equal, and then describe equality under the Law, that would seem to close the debate, but it does not. The First and Fourteenth Amendments frequently collide in their expressions of rights, and it falls to the courts to resolve conflicts between the two. There IS a conflict on the gay rights issue between these two amendments, and in this case as in others before it, that conflict requires suit to resolve.
Unfortunately, there is no other way for disputes over conflicting constitutional provisions to be resolved. Suing is how the process starts. Important questions usually end up at the Supreme Court for resolution.
This doesn’t mean that I advocate one resolution to this question over other. Asking the question simply means that I seek a durable answer from a higher authority than you can provide. The goal is to get an answer that will not change each time the Democrats or the Republicans take office.
One other point: Whether or not you agree that the language of marriage includes gay people doesn’t matter a hill of beans. What matters is whether or not the Constitution and the Law requires the equal treatment of gay people. At this juncture, the Supreme Court has decreed that the Constitution does require SOME equal treatment of gay people, but only insofar as the federal government is concerned. States are STILL permitted to treat gays otherwise, and this is where continuing legal conflict arises. This conflict will continue long after you and I have departed.
@George Wells:
That is true. Not a problem as long as I am allowed to have my opinion. However, would you agree that some have had that option restricted or denied them?
Gays might realize that they aren’t discriminated for being gay; they are discriminated against for trying to force that ideology upon others; forcing an obnoxious parade on the public, forcing their definition of terms on the public, forcing acknowledgement and full acceptance of their agenda on the public.
@Deplorable Me: #75?, we need to get he thread back on the rail and let the perpetual victim ideology or mental block be just that. There are some that can never ever walk on the sunny side of the street, see any progress then drag everyone into there belief there has been no headway at all. Even if they accomplished bankrupting the boy scouts are ruining womens sports ect with their “progress”
@Deplorable Me:
Ah, there in lies the issue.
@kitt:
While an admirable goal, Kitt, that is the issue. Not addressing the real issue of the Gaystapo only makes things worse. Make no mistake, the real goal was never same sex marriage. Just as global warming morphed into “climate change” to advance a “green” agenda, read Socialism, gays morphed the term “same sex marriage” into “equal rights.” Same sex marriage was just the nose of the camel being shoved under the tent supported by gays who knew better and foolish politicians.
Just as the facts behind Lawrence vs. Texas were a lie, and reported as the truth by a complicit liberal news media, the goal is forced acceptance of a decadent life style. Now look what is happening; drag queens, in full regalia, reading books to grade school children; children as young as five being instructed in the art of homosexuality using materials that are actually pornographic; reputations and careers, as well as livelihoods, being ruined by the Gaystapo, the list is long and growing.
It is time to expose the fraud perpetrated on the American public by the gay movement.
@kitt: Well, that’s just it; Hanson made some threats, Hanson got caught and went to jail. Trial pending. Apparently, the left has other things to make a bigger deal out of than it actually is. Perhaps they actually thought Mueller was really going to release that hollow bombshell dud of a report of his.
@Deplorable Me: I was hoping there would be someone in the media to give us more information, All I have seen is things said about him not what he actually says about himself.
It just seems patriots are always painted in a horrible caricature of some rabid skinhead, all armed to the teeth lurking waiting to pounce with bleach and a rope.
@retire05: I more than “get it”. Its all about destruction of things that are either traditional, or took another group years of hard work to build.
@kitt: We never got an explanation of what happened in Las Vegas. If it doesn’t support a liberal goal, have the proper boxes to check, the media is not interested and thus, unless you are an investigator yourself, that’s pretty much that.
I understand the raised sensitivity to threats and especially politically motivated threats (though that never seems to apply to the left) and Hasson listed a who’s who of liberals that have been ardently promoting attacks on conservatives. As to the threatening “arsenal”, it looks more like a collection than someone building up an offensive arsenal of heavy weaponry to kill everyone, which was one of his goals. So, we’ll have a trial and we’ll see.
While we have free speech and blah, blah, blah all that, people have to be aware they can’t make violent threats against other people. Well, conservatives or anyone from the spectrum of the right can’t, anyway.
@Deplorable Me: You want to place a bet that he gets charged well beyond weapons and pills? That it borders into thought crimes?
They do it to our kids all the time dont pretend your fingers are a gun and say pew pew, dont nibble that pop-tart into a forbidden shape, no drawings.
@Deplorable Me #77:
Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree with much that you write here.
At the risk of incurring Kitt’s wrath, I answer your following question:
I do agree. It is an unfortunate fact that in every instance of effort to achieve social change, there is a wide spectrum of opinion over how that change should be accomplished. There are many who advocate violence to extort their goals as their targets “sue for peace.” I don’t. Perhaps it is the Republican in me that believes no victory is worth the sacrifice of civility.
I would offer, though, that when a Black man rapes a white woman, you do not seek the punishment of all Black men. Neither should you hold all gays accountable for the crimes of some.
The above comment again applies, but in this context one must also question how far back into the closet of lies you are asking gays to return. Surely the concept of equal rights would include some acknowledgement of both the existence of gays and the legitimacy of their quest for those rights. Where do you draw the line?
And for the record, the spectacle of public exhibitionism is a tragic consequence of our collective resistance to censorship and the fascination we have with our right to free assembly. Parades are a way of expressing a particular pride in something that might well upset people of differing opinions, and gay pride parades in particular disturb people who have issues with homosexuality.
A “free” society doesn’t mean that you are free from exposure to anything that disquiets you. If a city permits a controversial parade, be it gay, Nazi or white supremacist, my advice would be to avoid it, because there are crazies on each side of whatever is at issue, and they are drawn to parades like moths to the light.
@George Wells: Wrath lol, I just ask the thread doesnt get dragged off topic for many posts, what say you about Hasson and how far they will try to take this beyond actual crimes committed.
@kitt:
I think we are too far down the path toward the movie “Minority Report’s” opening premise that crimes may be legitimately prevented before they are committed to now stop. They SHOULD be so interdicted. The risk to society of NOT taking the action that Law enforcement did in the Hasson case is intolerable. To Hasson should be applied what I consider a prophylactic remedy: Grind him into sausage, add a pinch of salt and feed him to the pigs. Any other punishment is too costly to afford and the risk of him ever getting free, legally or otherwise, is unacceptable. He forfeited his rights as a human being when he (apparently) first contemplated and then planned mass murder.
(By the way, I support the death penalty.)
@George Wells: Again it was just what the media decided to tell us, based on that information only and knowing how the media can selectively choose what they want you to know. Wrong web sites, a stupid comment on a blog or said when he was in a foul mood, may be all the have on him other than the pills and weapons charges. But as to your comment the 1st, 4th and 6th amendments be damned. The news says hes bad lets kill him.
@George Wells:
Again, if law enforcement prosecuted such threats across the board, there would be far fewer. However, if Hasson actually INTENDED to carry out his threat, then prosecution would not scare him off. However, if I was a deranged killer planning a mass killing, I wouldn’t advertise it on social media. Kind of eliminates the element of surprise.
@Deplorable Me:
This is ODD. Your second sentence disproves your first sentence.
In a similar vein, I’m not sure that applying rational logic to the workings of a deranged mind will lead you to anything useful. History is full enough of criminals who have perversely advertised their criminal intent BEFORE committing their actual crimes, as if they wanted to make sure that they got credit for what they were about to do. The best in law enforcement take great pains to learn the workings of such criminal minds, as they are very different.
@George Wells:
Well, yeah… sort of my point. People who shoot up other people are not rational people. Those who PLAN it are even less rational.
Good. We AGREE! Just to put the icing on the cake, about understanding the criminal mind: Folks, don’t try this at home!
And yet another distracting thread: Criminal Mind experts agree that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to the criminal behavior of sociopaths.