Archive for the ‘New Hampshire’ Category

You people!

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

Before I started this site, I wanted to start a blog called youpeople.org because, folks, there are times when you just want to grab the public by the shoulders and yell, “What’s wrong with You People?

While everyone has heard the phrase, ‘sex sells’, it would be a challenge to find anyone more dedicated to that philosophy for their own personal gain than politicians.  And way out ahead of the pack you will find prosecutors.

Nothing exemplifies that approach to self fulfillment quite like the parade of state attorneys general who have hitched their wagon to the moral crusade against craigslist.  As described on Huffington Post, seventeen state attorneys general have signed a letter (PDF) demanding that craigslist remove its adult services section.

“Only Craigslist has the power to stop these ads before they are even published,” Kansas attorney general Steve Six said in a statement.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  That’s because the First Amendment prevents the government from doing it itself.  Unfortunately, being good students of the persuasion techniques practiced by organized crime, state governments are masters at intimidation when it looks like it could gain them some votes.

The campaign against craigslist didn’t start as a grass roots movement.  It started as a crusade by a noisy minority who are adept at stirring up public emotion with visions of children being exploited.

“No amount of money, however, can justify the scourge of illegal prostitution and the suffering of the women and children who will continue to be victimized, in the market and trafficking provided by Craigslist,” the letter said.

Women who advertise on criagslist are invariably described as idiots with no will of their own to resist exploitation by evil pimps and slave masters.  They have to be victims, otherwise who would get worked up about it?  And, of course, a lot of them have to be children for the same reason.

While wearing sheets is out of fashion, there should be no mistake that these state attorneys general are using persecution of a favorite target as a means to inflame the public’s mob mentality.  They might as well be carrying torches and pitchforks.  And the public, knowing that it would be impolite to demand actual numerical evidence that rises above the level of guesses and delusional claims, mindlessly goes along with the hysteria.  Who would oppose those whose only wish is to “help women and children”?  But, the last time I heard, a willingness to be your brother’s keeper wasn’t sufficient reason to burn the Constitution.

My message to the people of these states is this:

Well, folks, your wish is coming true.  In your fervor to impose your narrow personal values on everyone else, You People have created a monster who will enthusiastically piss on free speech in order to carry out your will.  But, be warned.  The monster is pretty kinky.  He likes a threesome, so don’t be surprised to find him in your bed as a supervising partner deciding what does or doesn’t constitute acceptable behavior between you and your lover.

P.S.  I intentionally avoided mention of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley simply because if I started writing about her, this post would have turned into a book.  She is probably one of the most self-serving and parasitic of politicians, having mastered the craft of exploiting children and sex hysteria for her own personal benefit.  In a contest to be the antichrist, Coakley would be a leading contender.

Man kills himself after cat sitters find his ‘porn’

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

From the New Hampshire Union Leader :

A mother and daughter taking care of a neighbor’s pet ended up finding disturbing images in a man’s apartment instead of the cat toy they were looking for, according to court reports.

Disturbing images?  Disturbing to a mother and her 5-year-old daughter?  That could mean anything from Playboy to snuff pictures.

After an investigation by Littleton police, Richard Swift, 71, of 507 Colonial Court was charged with five felony counts of possession of child pornography.

[...]

The five complaints on file at Littleton District Court graphically describe images of a girl who appears to be younger than 16.

Richard Swift, 71, was out on $10,000 personal recognizance under the conditions that he not have contact with children younger than 17 or go within 50 yards of any school or day care center, or use the Internet to view, download or transmit child pornography. He is now reported dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

A follow up story reports the following:

“These pictures ranged in nature of young girls posing in clothed in provocative ways from a Web site …,” Officer Chris Cote wrote in court papers. “I would estimate these girls to be in the range of 6 to 11 years old.”

There were other images of girls over the age of 18, as well, investigators reported.

Police seized the photographs, as well as two computers, video tapes and “some type of nudist brochure,” which depicted nude children.

Nice work, cops.  None of the above describes illegal material and, just for the record, you can buy nudist style photography books that show nude children in many mainstream bookstores including amazon.com.  How can that be, you ask?  Because the word nude is not interchangeable with the word porn and anyone who doesn’t have the intellectual horsepower to distinguish between between the two shouldn’t be employed in the justice system.

For the record, the possession of child porn is not evidence that someone has ever abused a child.  That fact is usually overlooked by the public in their haste to grab their pitchfork and noose and join the rest of the torch wielding mob, drooling at the prospect of stringing someone up (quick, before any facts emerge that might diminish their justification).  If you think  my characterization of the public is too harsh, you only need to read these comments to see how wiling people are to condemn a fellow citizen to death on a mere accusation.

I’d be willing to bet the “child porn” they confiscated will never see the light of day because if it doesn’t actually constitute the legal definition of child porn, they could be sued for false arrest.  The justice system is exceptionally adept at covering up its misconduct.