Oct 06 2006
Edmund Lawyer Hints At Prank
I just saw the lawyer for Jordan Edmund on CNN and when asked whether this was just part of a prank the lawyer said, with a small grin, “I can’t say there was not an element of a prank in this” [paraphrasing from memory]. So it seems Drudge is correct. So the barely risque emails from the SSP website were forgeries of an issue dealt with in the fall and the IMs were the results of a prank goading Foley on. No complaints in all these years from the victims. Reviews by the FBI and media concluding insufficient evidence. Parents asking Foley to not talk to their child because he was uncomfortable – and Folley complying. Nothing until faked emails hit a fake website on information CREW and ABC News had for months….
AJ – Precisely. The intent was to destroy Mark Foley. Success.
The fallout of Us vs. Them was just icing on the cake. They hoped they could snag Hastert, but the old coot held his ground – oh well.
Rightwing bigots like Malkin and the far right religious nuts jumped on hoping to rid the “gay sinners are sexual predators” from their midst.
Watch- the moonbats of the left and the wingnuts of the right will all slink back under their rocks, as if nothing even transpired. Foley’s gone – and it’s next on the list.
AJ, something for you to check on.
I hear on the news today (in my car) that when CREW gave the FBI the emails they were so redacted that the FBI could not do anything with them and that CREW refused to give the FBI the source of the emails.
Apparently, CREW wanted to do two things:
create a cover for themselves by being able to say that they had given the emails to the FBI and to have an excuse for making the emails public on the basis that they had given the emails to the FBI and the FBI refused to follow up on them.
What the hell did they expect the FBI to do with emails that while they may have been overly friendly were certainly not in violation of any federal law.
Also, yesterday on the Neil Cavuto show, Georgie Soros was quick to say that he had nothing to do with any of this.
Oh, yeah, I am believing that.
Seems to me like there are a lot of supeonas that need to be filed.
If this “October Surprise” all blows up in the Democrats’ faces, they will probably blame it on Karl Rove.
People always blame Karl Rove after they make idiots of themselves.
Can someone answer a question. Can one accept gay relationships without condoning gay marriage?
Kathie:
I think so. I really do not care one or the other what people do in their private lives, but I am not comfortable with changing marriage.
Enlightened:
Malkin has really disgraced herself. I like her less all the time. Talk about unhinged.
Terrye:
I don’t care either, but I’m still not comfortably redefining marriage. When I hear Dems talking about gays, why is it that they say Republicans are having internal tension over Foley being gay? Are there alot of Rep who care who he is or do they care about what he does?
Kathie & Terrye
The point I see in a try for ‘###’ marriage what ever ‘###” means is an attempt to do without a formal contract that which is inherent in a marriage contract. The prime example, to me, would be things like mandating employer supplied healthcare and inheritance of property et al. Religeous problems do not exist in my world……….
Kathie,
I am all for gay relationships and civil unions (I think it is abhorent life long partners do not get visitation rights like spouses). And there is a difference between hetero-marriages and same sex unions. The gay-lesbian just need to realize a marriage is not going to be changed along with sexual tolerance.
The people making a stink on the right are not the “religious nuts”. Not unless Kudlow and Blankley are religious nuts.
Kathie:
To them right = bigot. It is just that simple.
No, I don’t think it really is the religious people all that much, they believe in hating the sin, loving the sinner. But the people on the right who are having a problem with this are the people who don’t like Hastert anyway and the people like Malkin who stay in a constant state of pissed off.
I do think there is some prejudice, but it is on both sides of the aisle. That is just people.
Even if civil unions are legalized and given equivalent rights as compared to traditional marriage, the is a problem on the horizon.
Some are already working on some way to frame the case for polyamory (3 or more in a relationship chose your gender mix) , which is not to be confused with bigamy which is always 1 male and multiple females.
One serious problem in the Foley mix that isn’t getting much attention is the Rogers’ (et al) extortion racket that seems to have been targeting Foley and (how many?) unnamed others, including congressional staffers, about votes on pro-homosexual-agenda legislation.
Such as possibly the former Foley aide — was he chief of staff? — who worked for Foley for ten years, just resigned or was fired by another Republican, and has changed his story, yet seems to be the prime “witness” that Hastert and other GOP leaders were made aware of the “Foley problem.” His name came up in one of Rogers on-line blatherings. Is he under pressure by the Rogers bunch?
I don’t care what people do in private. I have no objection to gays.
Whatever makes them happy. What I object to is the idea that gays and lesbians are different from us in as much as they are treated specially. It seems any crime against them is a hate crime. What, if not a hate crime, is murder? Therefore, any crime against any of us is a hate crime. Women are beaten and raped all the time. Is this not a hate crime? The idea of specific hate crimes is ridiculous. Why should they get special treatment? What I really object to is their shoving their agenda down our throats. I don’t care to know the sexual habits of anyone. And causing a ruckus because they could not march in a St. Patrick’s Day parade is going a little too far. That parade has only one theme and it isn’t gay pride. I agree they want marriage to get health benefits and social security, etc. They want the whole ball of wax. They want to change the rules in midstream. I doubt they will ever be satisfied. They don’t have to have marriage or even a civil union regarding inheritances. All they need to do is make a will. However, republican gays in congress like Foley are taking a chance of being blackmailed on down the road by the democrats. This whole marriage crap is the same old stuff…breaking down of traditional familes and traditional values. What has surprised me is the sheer number of gays. I knew there were a lot, but they seem to be everywhere. I don’t know why they want to label themselves.
I had an extensive conversation with a friend, who happens to be gay, that is also a Republican. Here is the compact version of that conversation.
He told me that he did not give a damn about “gay” marriage. He said all he wanted was to be able to get an education (which he had), work at his job that paid him well, mow his grass on Saturdays, grocery shop, see a movie, buy a house and invest his money, save for his retirement and basically be like anyone else with one exception. He lived with another man.
Some of the things I asked him about:
Social Security – he said so what? He and his partner both worked and both would draw SS benefits when they reached retirement age. And he said that if he could not do without the $255. Social Security death benefit from his partner it would only show he was too stupid to get a job or take care of himself. He said this was just more entitlement money to the gay agenda.
Rights to make a decision if his partner was terminal – he told me he already had that right. They had both signed living wills and given each other the power of attorney. Not their parents, each other.
Insurance benefits – so what? He asked. If he loses his job and doesn’t have insurance, neither would his partner, even if he was married to a woman. It’s no big deal, he told me.
He told me it made him mad as hell to see gays marching down the street, dressed like French strippers, bragging to everyone what they do in their own bedrooms. He said “they demand the government not tell them what they can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and then they march down the street demanding special consideration and rights because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Basically, the gay lobby is telling us to mind our own business unless it benefits them and then they make their personal business public.”
Barbara: I also asked my friend about what you pointed out; the hugh number of gays. He told me most of the people who claim to be gay, really are not gay. It is a fade, en vogue, like wearing tye-dye shirts in the 70’s. He said they are like the kids who dye their hair purple and wear outragous clothing to get attention. It is a “hey, look at me” mentality. Nothing more.
I promise you, gay people who are well adjusted do not march down the street wearing women’s bikinis. Chances are you would never know they are gay unless you know them so well as to know who their partners are. The rest are just the freaks that are in any subculture. Kids with pink hair; women who dress up like the Adams family and subscribe to witchcraft; punk rockers; all members of a subculture. All looking for notarity and acceptance.
Gays who are secure in themselves and are not “acting” gay for attention, realize that the gay lobby is doing nothing to make their lives easier. They realize the gay lobby is doing more damage than good. People like McGreevy, who had now come out with a book on all his seedy activities, are resented because it only makes things hard on gays who are trying their level best just to live like anyone else.
I asked my friend about gays raising children – he said only if a kid couldn’t find a home anywhere else. He said kids have a hard enough time as it is without dumping on them from the git-go.
Retire:
What an incredibly settled friend..obviously very comfortable with himself. I think that is wonderful for anyone in this life no matter what their sexual orientation.
Thanks for sharing.
Check this out.
Here’s when the Foley story broke:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1710267/posts
Jordan Edmunds posted about the “News Flash” on the Pages website at 2:12pm which means if he was in Oklahoma he posted 6 minutes after ABC’s article was posted on the internet. Now what are the chances that was just a coincidence??? On a scale of 1 – 10
I’d give it a zero.
http://tinyurl.com/gesen