Day: November 30, 2017

Scrupulous Conservatives and the Moore Conundrum


Roy Moore has given scrupulous conservatives (SC) a new reason to help liberals destroy America.

When the “Access Hollywood” tape came out, SCs bemoaned the fact that Trump accepted groupies’ consensual offers of free gropes while ignoring the fact that the behavior appeared to be something that happened years ago. While such behavior is hardly wonderful, the SCs seemed to forget that the alternative to Trump was a woman who supported dismembering viable pain-capable unborn women-to-be simply because their parents wanted a boy.

Putting feelings ahead of logic, SCs told us that not voting for Trump wouldn’t really help Hillary win and hence didn’t increase the risk of creating a pro-abortion anywhere any time for any reason majority on the Supreme Court.

To SCs, feeling “pure” and untainted is the driving factor in their voting decisions. While charges of past indiscretions seem to trigger SCs loathing, they oddly weren’t bothered by the fact that Bush was an alcoholic — as it shouldn’t have since he’d been on the wagon for a long time. Apparently only people who are sexually impure can never repent and reform in the minds of SCs.

In the case of Moore, there are three young women who said he hugged and kissed them consensually when they were above the age of consent, one woman who said he attacked her, and one girl who said he tried to get her to have sex with him in a grossly inappropriate and criminal way but accepted no for an answer.

The fact that the media has to include the three women with whom Moore did nothing wrong is one of the many problems with the charges against Moore.

The woman who claimed that Moore assaulted her has now disappeared after the authenticity of Moore’s inscription in her yearbook has been called into question. Her unwillingness to submit the yearbook to independent analysis has, for the moment, rendered her claims somewhat dubious.

Which leaves one still possible claim against Moore. While there are a number of problems with the claim, ranging from the girl not having a phone in her bedroom to how did the east coast elite Washington Post reporters find this woman when people who lived near her — democrat operatives who wanted to destroy Moore for years — couldn’t, we can’t positively say that she’s not telling the truth. Further Moore adamantly denies the charges and unlike almost all the other recent cases there aren’t multiple women, or girls in the case of Roman Polanski, pointing to a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Because there is a chance that the charge is true, all conservatives are a little uneasy about supporting Moore. Yet the SC’s position is that any defect on the part of a conservative candidate is instantly disqualifying, which is actually a very anticonservative position.

In America, conservatism is generally based on Christian principles, which include the ideas of redemption and forgiveness. If Moore did do this one thing decades ago and never ever did it again, does it mean that he’s still unfit or does it mean that he’s a sinner like the rest of us who strayed seriously once and then, through the grace of God, repented and reformed?

One of the greatest saints, Saint Augustine, lived such a horrible life that his mother, Saint Monica, prayed for 20 years for his conversion. He too was saved by turning to God, and no Christian rejects what he wrote after he reformed because he led a dissolute and immoral life in the past.

When Bill Clinton first ran for the presidency he admitted on “60 Minutes” that he’d cheated on his wife, but Hillary and Bill said that that was in the past. At the time, while still opposing Clinton for his odious policies, most conservatives were willing to give him a pass on the adultery if it was in the past and it had ended.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tell us that vicious criminals can repent and hence should be released early and have their voting rights returned are declaring that Moore’s decade-old possible crime is both unforgivable and something he can’t have repented of.

Ignoring for the moment both the possibility that Moore is completely innocent and the idea that if he sinned once but then lived a good life for decades after, perhaps he should be forgiven, the truly major problem with the SC position is that it essentially presumes that Moore’s opponent is morally unobjectionable.

Jones, Moore’s opponent, has said that he opposes any and all restrictions on abortion. He supports the physical dismemberment of viable, pain-capable unborn babies. He supports sex-selection abortions which target women to be. If one believes the science which says that a new human being is formed at the moment of conception, that makes Jones an ongoing supporter of mass murder on an unbelievable scale — nearly 60,000,000 babies killed since Roe v. Wade.

Jones also supports allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to use women’s bathrooms, thereby ensuring equal opportunity for heterosexual pedophiles. Currently gay pedophiles can stalk their victims in the bathroom and Jones wants to extend that right to heterosexual predators.

The reality is that it’s cowardly, not noble, to refuse to support a flawed yet reformed man over a pro-abortionist who supports laws enabling pedophiles. SCs value their own feelings of superior smugness more than they do the safety of little girls or the lives of the unborn who will be violently snuffed out if Jones is elected.

It’s one thing to oppose Trump when there were other options, such as Ted Cruz, or to oppose Moore during the primaries, but it’s quite another to say that it’s better to have a pro-mass murder of the unborn uberliberal in the Senate rather than a pro-life man who may have done something horrible decades ago.

The SCs argue that rational conservatives are simply unconcerned and morally inferior. Yet the reality is that someone who, in an election between Peter and Satan, would vote for Satan because Peter sinned is not morally superior at all.

No one who thought that Moore has molested underage girls in the recent past, say as recently as 10 years ago, would vote for him. But it’s not a sign of moral inferiority to declare that in the face of one “he said she said” claim that supposedly occurred decades ago to choose to forgive and vote against an abortion supporter.

Everyone who is planning to vote for Moore would be ecstatic if the charge could be proven to be false, yet the reality is we need to put on our big boy/girl pants on and pick the solution that is best for keeping the children safe in America.

Now is not the time to be scrupulous and put one’s feelings of self-righteousness ahead of what’s best for the country and the children.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

Roy Moore has given scrupulous conservatives (SC) a new reason to help liberals destroy America.

When the “Access Hollywood” tape came out, SCs bemoaned the fact that Trump accepted groupies’ consensual offers of free gropes while ignoring the fact that the behavior appeared to be something that happened years ago. While such behavior is hardly wonderful, the SCs seemed to forget that the alternative to Trump was a woman who supported dismembering viable pain-capable unborn women-to-be simply because their parents wanted a boy.

Putting feelings ahead of logic, SCs told us that not voting for Trump wouldn’t really help Hillary win and hence didn’t increase the risk of creating a pro-abortion anywhere any time for any reason majority on the Supreme Court.

To SCs, feeling “pure” and untainted is the driving factor in their voting decisions. While charges of past indiscretions seem to trigger SCs loathing, they oddly weren’t bothered by the fact that Bush was an alcoholic — as it shouldn’t have since he’d been on the wagon for a long time. Apparently only people who are sexually impure can never repent and reform in the minds of SCs.

In the case of Moore, there are three young women who said he hugged and kissed them consensually when they were above the age of consent, one woman who said he attacked her, and one girl who said he tried to get her to have sex with him in a grossly inappropriate and criminal way but accepted no for an answer.

The fact that the media has to include the three women with whom Moore did nothing wrong is one of the many problems with the charges against Moore.

The woman who claimed that Moore assaulted her has now disappeared after the authenticity of Moore’s inscription in her yearbook has been called into question. Her unwillingness to submit the yearbook to independent analysis has, for the moment, rendered her claims somewhat dubious.

Which leaves one still possible claim against Moore. While there are a number of problems with the claim, ranging from the girl not having a phone in her bedroom to how did the east coast elite Washington Post reporters find this woman when people who lived near her — democrat operatives who wanted to destroy Moore for years — couldn’t, we can’t positively say that she’s not telling the truth. Further Moore adamantly denies the charges and unlike almost all the other recent cases there aren’t multiple women, or girls in the case of Roman Polanski, pointing to a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Because there is a chance that the charge is true, all conservatives are a little uneasy about supporting Moore. Yet the SC’s position is that any defect on the part of a conservative candidate is instantly disqualifying, which is actually a very anticonservative position.

In America, conservatism is generally based on Christian principles, which include the ideas of redemption and forgiveness. If Moore did do this one thing decades ago and never ever did it again, does it mean that he’s still unfit or does it mean that he’s a sinner like the rest of us who strayed seriously once and then, through the grace of God, repented and reformed?

One of the greatest saints, Saint Augustine, lived such a horrible life that his mother, Saint Monica, prayed for 20 years for his conversion. He too was saved by turning to God, and no Christian rejects what he wrote after he reformed because he led a dissolute and immoral life in the past.

When Bill Clinton first ran for the presidency he admitted on “60 Minutes” that he’d cheated on his wife, but Hillary and Bill said that that was in the past. At the time, while still opposing Clinton for his odious policies, most conservatives were willing to give him a pass on the adultery if it was in the past and it had ended.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tell us that vicious criminals can repent and hence should be released early and have their voting rights returned are declaring that Moore’s decade-old possible crime is both unforgivable and something he can’t have repented of.

Ignoring for the moment both the possibility that Moore is completely innocent and the idea that if he sinned once but then lived a good life for decades after, perhaps he should be forgiven, the truly major problem with the SC position is that it essentially presumes that Moore’s opponent is morally unobjectionable.

Jones, Moore’s opponent, has said that he opposes any and all restrictions on abortion. He supports the physical dismemberment of viable, pain-capable unborn babies. He supports sex-selection abortions which target women to be. If one believes the science which says that a new human being is formed at the moment of conception, that makes Jones an ongoing supporter of mass murder on an unbelievable scale — nearly 60,000,000 babies killed since Roe v. Wade.

Jones also supports allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to use women’s bathrooms, thereby ensuring equal opportunity for heterosexual pedophiles. Currently gay pedophiles can stalk their victims in the bathroom and Jones wants to extend that right to heterosexual predators.

The reality is that it’s cowardly, not noble, to refuse to support a flawed yet reformed man over a pro-abortionist who supports laws enabling pedophiles. SCs value their own feelings of superior smugness more than they do the safety of little girls or the lives of the unborn who will be violently snuffed out if Jones is elected.

It’s one thing to oppose Trump when there were other options, such as Ted Cruz, or to oppose Moore during the primaries, but it’s quite another to say that it’s better to have a pro-mass murder of the unborn uberliberal in the Senate rather than a pro-life man who may have done something horrible decades ago.

The SCs argue that rational conservatives are simply unconcerned and morally inferior. Yet the reality is that someone who, in an election between Peter and Satan, would vote for Satan because Peter sinned is not morally superior at all.

No one who thought that Moore has molested underage girls in the recent past, say as recently as 10 years ago, would vote for him. But it’s not a sign of moral inferiority to declare that in the face of one “he said she said” claim that supposedly occurred decades ago to choose to forgive and vote against an abortion supporter.

Everyone who is planning to vote for Moore would be ecstatic if the charge could be proven to be false, yet the reality is we need to put on our big boy/girl pants on and pick the solution that is best for keeping the children safe in America.

Now is not the time to be scrupulous and put one’s feelings of self-righteousness ahead of what’s best for the country and the children.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link

Not All Stings Work: On the War James O'Keefe Is Winning


In his compelling new book, Blue on Blue, Charles Campisi, chief of the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, tells how he was able to dramatically reform the bureau and improve the quality of NYPD policing. 

Campisi instituted what he called “integrity tests.”  These were more commonly known in the NYPD as “stings.”  In his newly proactive NYPD, Campisi ran as many as 500 to 600 integrity tests a year, in which cops had “the opportunity to do the right thing or the wrong thing.” 

The key, writes Campisi, was “to make the situation seem real, so real … the cop in question doesn’t know he’s being tested.”

For the past nine years, Project Veritas, the brainchild of 33-year-old James O’Keefe, has been running integrity tests on a variety of institutions the major media have chosen to leave untested.  Among the untested, at least until recently, are the major media operations themselves.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post did a spectacularly self-congratulatory end-zone dance for no greater accomplishment than having passed a test.  Its reporters sniffed out a Project Veritas undercover who was testing the Post’s eagerness to find still one more alleged victim to kill Roy Moore’s candidacy in Alabama.

Where Project Veritas failed in this instance was, to paraphrase Campisi, to make the situation seem so real that the subject did not know he was being tested.  Project Veritas has failed before.  It is inevitable in this line of work.  What is remarkable is how often these young guerrilla journalists have succeeded.

In 2009, for instance, O’Keefe and a young friend ran integrity tests on ACORN offices in six separate cities.  ACORN execs celebrated upon realizing that their Philadelphia office saw through the sting.  This was before they realized that their officials in Washington, Baltimore, Brooklyn, and San Bernardino had no problem advising a pimp on how to find housing for his underage Central American sex slaves.

The major media had turned a blind eye to the flagrant corruption of their ACORN allies for years.  As a direct result of Project Veritas’s exposure, this billion-dollar enterprise collapsed within months.  When it did, the media turned on O’Keefe.  He had not only brought down a useful leftist institution, but also embarrassed the reporters who should have done that job themselves.  The media have been in full vengeance mode ever since.

In August 2016, Russ Feingold’s operatives detected a young female undercover working her away inside the Senate campaign in Wisconsin.  The Feingold people rushed to the media, and the media traced the woman to Project Veritas.  “Democratic Senate Campaign Catches Conservative Infiltrator,” shouted Time magazine.

Undeterred, this same undercover started interning at Democracy Partners in Washington a month after the Wisconsin bust.  Her work there helped expose the illegal DNC dirty tricks operations, get two top Democratic operatives fired, and reversed the momentum of the presidential campaign.  Some stings work.  Some don’t.

In the run-up to the inauguration, this same young undercover got busted again.  The work of her colleagues on the same investigation, however, went undetected.  “A D.C. police spokesman has confirmed,” reported the Washington Post grudgingly in January 2017, “that a secret video recording made Dec. 18 by one of O’Keefe’s operatives led to the arrest of one man and foiled an alleged plot to spread acid at the DeploraBall for Trump supporters at the National Press Club.”  Two other men were also arrested as a result of the Project Veritas videos.

In this past year, O’Keefe turned his attention to the media.  He focused on the major media – CNN, Washington Post, New York Times – to test whether they lived up to their own stated objectives, as the Times puts it, ”to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” 

The media have welcomed this integrity test about as much as a corrupt cop does a visit from Internal Affairs.  At every level of these news organizations, employees recognize they are making a mockery of their mission.  O’Keefe and crew have been gradually and quietly accumulating these admissions.

Desiree Shoe, a senior staff editor based in London, described for a Project Veritas undercover the charade she and her colleagues are asked to pull off on a daily basis.  Like almost all of her colleagues, she is open in her disdain for President Trump.

“Trump is just an oblivious idiot,” Shoe insisted.  It was not just Trump that bothered her.  She considers even Vice President Mike Pence “f—— horrible.”  Shoe believes that her sentiments are the norm among journalists.  

A Times staffer in New York confirmed her suspicion.  “Yeah, they all hate [Trump],” he told an undercover.  When asked whether this pervasive hatred affects reporting at the Times, he conceded, “They unfairly report on him.”

Aware of the stated mission of the Times, Shoe acknowledged, “Our main stories are supposed to be objective,” but as she conceded, the Times is “widely understood to be liberal-leaning.”

Compounding the problem for the Times and the other media is that they have experienced a “Trump bump.”  As John Bonifield of CNN told a Project Veritas journalist, “I think there are a lot of liberal viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized, but I think if we had behaved that way with President Obama, I think our viewers would have been turned off. Trump is good for business right now.”

To retain their liberal viewers, the major media have to create stories that will hold the audience’s attention.  This explains why Adam Entous, the national security reporter for the Washington Post, has hammered out more than 50 stories on potential Trump collusion with Russia, a collusion that would not be criminal even if it were true.

What does Entous have to show for his work?  “Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians,” he told a Project Veritas undercover.  “There’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen so far.”

A few months back, CNN’s Van Jones told a Project Veritas undercover, “The Russia thing is just a big nothingburger.”  CNN producer John Bonified elaborated, “I think the president is probably right to say, like, ‘Look, you are witch-hunting me.  You have no smoking gun; you have no real proof.'”

Patiently and quietly, Project Veritas journalists have been stripping the mainstream media of even the illusion of objectivity.  To be taken seriously, their newsrooms need that illusion as much as a dirty cop needs his badge.

There is only one organization willing and able to blow their cover.  Although the dominant media will do everything in their power to stop them, the scrappy guerrilla journalists of Project Veritas are not about to quit.

In his compelling new book, Blue on Blue, Charles Campisi, chief of the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, tells how he was able to dramatically reform the bureau and improve the quality of NYPD policing. 

Campisi instituted what he called “integrity tests.”  These were more commonly known in the NYPD as “stings.”  In his newly proactive NYPD, Campisi ran as many as 500 to 600 integrity tests a year, in which cops had “the opportunity to do the right thing or the wrong thing.” 

The key, writes Campisi, was “to make the situation seem real, so real … the cop in question doesn’t know he’s being tested.”

For the past nine years, Project Veritas, the brainchild of 33-year-old James O’Keefe, has been running integrity tests on a variety of institutions the major media have chosen to leave untested.  Among the untested, at least until recently, are the major media operations themselves.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post did a spectacularly self-congratulatory end-zone dance for no greater accomplishment than having passed a test.  Its reporters sniffed out a Project Veritas undercover who was testing the Post’s eagerness to find still one more alleged victim to kill Roy Moore’s candidacy in Alabama.

Where Project Veritas failed in this instance was, to paraphrase Campisi, to make the situation seem so real that the subject did not know he was being tested.  Project Veritas has failed before.  It is inevitable in this line of work.  What is remarkable is how often these young guerrilla journalists have succeeded.

In 2009, for instance, O’Keefe and a young friend ran integrity tests on ACORN offices in six separate cities.  ACORN execs celebrated upon realizing that their Philadelphia office saw through the sting.  This was before they realized that their officials in Washington, Baltimore, Brooklyn, and San Bernardino had no problem advising a pimp on how to find housing for his underage Central American sex slaves.

The major media had turned a blind eye to the flagrant corruption of their ACORN allies for years.  As a direct result of Project Veritas’s exposure, this billion-dollar enterprise collapsed within months.  When it did, the media turned on O’Keefe.  He had not only brought down a useful leftist institution, but also embarrassed the reporters who should have done that job themselves.  The media have been in full vengeance mode ever since.

In August 2016, Russ Feingold’s operatives detected a young female undercover working her away inside the Senate campaign in Wisconsin.  The Feingold people rushed to the media, and the media traced the woman to Project Veritas.  “Democratic Senate Campaign Catches Conservative Infiltrator,” shouted Time magazine.

Undeterred, this same undercover started interning at Democracy Partners in Washington a month after the Wisconsin bust.  Her work there helped expose the illegal DNC dirty tricks operations, get two top Democratic operatives fired, and reversed the momentum of the presidential campaign.  Some stings work.  Some don’t.

In the run-up to the inauguration, this same young undercover got busted again.  The work of her colleagues on the same investigation, however, went undetected.  “A D.C. police spokesman has confirmed,” reported the Washington Post grudgingly in January 2017, “that a secret video recording made Dec. 18 by one of O’Keefe’s operatives led to the arrest of one man and foiled an alleged plot to spread acid at the DeploraBall for Trump supporters at the National Press Club.”  Two other men were also arrested as a result of the Project Veritas videos.

In this past year, O’Keefe turned his attention to the media.  He focused on the major media – CNN, Washington Post, New York Times – to test whether they lived up to their own stated objectives, as the Times puts it, ”to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” 

The media have welcomed this integrity test about as much as a corrupt cop does a visit from Internal Affairs.  At every level of these news organizations, employees recognize they are making a mockery of their mission.  O’Keefe and crew have been gradually and quietly accumulating these admissions.

Desiree Shoe, a senior staff editor based in London, described for a Project Veritas undercover the charade she and her colleagues are asked to pull off on a daily basis.  Like almost all of her colleagues, she is open in her disdain for President Trump.

“Trump is just an oblivious idiot,” Shoe insisted.  It was not just Trump that bothered her.  She considers even Vice President Mike Pence “f—— horrible.”  Shoe believes that her sentiments are the norm among journalists.  

A Times staffer in New York confirmed her suspicion.  “Yeah, they all hate [Trump],” he told an undercover.  When asked whether this pervasive hatred affects reporting at the Times, he conceded, “They unfairly report on him.”

Aware of the stated mission of the Times, Shoe acknowledged, “Our main stories are supposed to be objective,” but as she conceded, the Times is “widely understood to be liberal-leaning.”

Compounding the problem for the Times and the other media is that they have experienced a “Trump bump.”  As John Bonifield of CNN told a Project Veritas journalist, “I think there are a lot of liberal viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized, but I think if we had behaved that way with President Obama, I think our viewers would have been turned off. Trump is good for business right now.”

To retain their liberal viewers, the major media have to create stories that will hold the audience’s attention.  This explains why Adam Entous, the national security reporter for the Washington Post, has hammered out more than 50 stories on potential Trump collusion with Russia, a collusion that would not be criminal even if it were true.

What does Entous have to show for his work?  “Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians,” he told a Project Veritas undercover.  “There’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen so far.”

A few months back, CNN’s Van Jones told a Project Veritas undercover, “The Russia thing is just a big nothingburger.”  CNN producer John Bonified elaborated, “I think the president is probably right to say, like, ‘Look, you are witch-hunting me.  You have no smoking gun; you have no real proof.'”

Patiently and quietly, Project Veritas journalists have been stripping the mainstream media of even the illusion of objectivity.  To be taken seriously, their newsrooms need that illusion as much as a dirty cop needs his badge.

There is only one organization willing and able to blow their cover.  Although the dominant media will do everything in their power to stop them, the scrappy guerrilla journalists of Project Veritas are not about to quit.



Source link

HORROR: Son mutilates dad, posts selfies after murder…


CHICAGO (CBS) — Just days after he was served with a court order barring him from coming near his father, Cook County prosecutors said Carlton Edmondson murdered the 61-year-old and mutilated the body in the basement of the older man’s West Pullman home.

He then allegedly posted several selfies on Facebook, the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting.

Led into court in shackles and white, jail-issued coveralls, the 26-year-old Edmondson muttered and ranted during a bond hearing Tuesday at the Leighton Criminal Courthouse.

When Assistant State’s Attorney Julia Ramirez said that Edmondson was facing a single count of first-degree murder, in addition to pending charges for violating the order of protection taken out by his father on Nov. 20, Edmondson shouted.

“The order of protection is gone,” he said, smiling. “He is no longer living.”

Edmondson laughed softly to himself as Ramirez described how Carl Edmondson’s body was found Saturday at the bottom of the basement stairs of his home in the 11500 block of South Bishop – the skull crushed and blood and brain matter splattered on the floor and walls.

carlton edmondson 27 e1511916381952 Son Mutilated Dad, Posted Selfies After Murder: Prosecutors

Carlton Edmondson | Chicago Police

Carlton Edmondson shook his head and seemed to chuckle when Ramirez added that Carl Edmondson’s penis had been cut off.

The outbursts prompted Judge Stephanie Miller to order Carlton Edmondson out of the courtroom even before she ruled that he be held without bond.

Police went to the elder Edmondson’s house on the weekend after Carlton Edmondson’s uncle reported that he had stopped by and seen Carlton Edmondson inside the house, and knew that he not supposed to be there.

Carlton Edmondson answered the door when police arrived, and when asked the whereabouts of his father, said the older man was “at the hospital,” Ramirez said.

Police took Carlton Edmondson into custody, and found the body beside a Bowie knife, circular saw, and a “concrete capstone,” Ramirez said. The body smelled of gasoline, and a gas can lay nearby, Ramirez said. Inside the house, investigators found a black jacket that appeared to be the one Carlton Edmondson was wearing in pictures he posted to Facebook on Saturday.

In the photos, Carlton Edmondson holds a cigarette and grins at the camera, with what looks like blood spatter against the white logos on the jacket.

Using the odd punctuation and spelling Carlton Edmondson used for most of his posts, one photo is captioned “EyEm OAWn mA pEriOd #beebop #silenceofthelambs #gdshit #chevezwhatupfolkz.” A post from around 7 a.m. reads “EyE sIlEnCed thE LahmeDs.”

Edmondson’s Facebook profile lists his profession as “singer/songwriter.”

The Cook County Medical Examiner’s office ruled that the elder Edmondson died of multiple injuries from assault.

Five days earlier, Carlton Edmondson was arrested for throwing a brick through the window of his father’s house, and was released on a recognizance bond from the police station.

Court records indicate Carlton Edmondson had been arrested six times since September on a variety of misdemeanor charges, including refusing to give his name to police officers who saw him drinking on a street corner; stealing a pair of $16 sunglasses from a South Side Target and snatching a 70-year-old woman’s cell phone as she bought lottery tickets at a convenience store.

In 2015, he was arrested for flashing his penis at police officers in the Loop, and also for refusing to leave a downtown 7-Eleven store.

Carlton Edmondson’s father’s first sought an order of protection from his son in August. He subsequently made another request for the order in October.

The order of protection barred Carlton Edmondson from having contact with his father or coming to his house. The younger Edmondson was served with a copy of the order when he was arrested, Ramirez said.

“Not guilty!” Carlton Edmondson yelled. “It wasn’t me. It wasn’t his jacket.”

Assistant Public Defender Kevin Ochalla told Miller that Carlton Edmondson was a graduate of Morgan Park High School and had attended Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.

When Ochalla asked that Carlton Edmondson be evaluated at the jail hospital, he shouted again.

“He got my death-body, G!” he said, pointing a finger at Ochalla. “I’ma kill him.”

(Source: Sun-Times Media Wire © Chicago Sun-Times 2017. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)



Source link

Both Men and Women Can Be Sexual Predators


But just as it seems every man is a predator and every woman has been wrongfully fondled, there is a small cloud on the horizon that augers a storm. The cloud may portend a new revolution.

Revolutions often begin with questions about truth and reality. What is the truth behind the accusations? Are men automatically guilty if accused? Should we consider whether women can be as predatory as men? Are all the accusing women innocent victims? Are none of them looking for power or money?

Maybe there is a little room for realistic cynicism.

As Angelo Codevilla recently pointed out, “Men, but mostly women, have been trading erotic services for access to power since time began.” As he observed sexual power plays during his eight years on the Senate staff, “Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.”

Codevilla’s point is that all sexual transgression, including bargaining and power mongering, is held to be entirely the fault of men. But not all can be blamed on what radical feminists see as an inherently detestable and predatory patriarchy.

Women can be just as predatory as men, sexually and otherwise. Though assigned invisibility by most contemporary feminists who have a vested interest in the myth of women as always and forever victims of men, Phyllis Chesler and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both cool-headed analysts, have shown that women can be as cruel and heartlessly manipulative toward men and other women as men can be toward women and other men.

Yes, we must recognize it has been and still sometimes is the lamentable truth that women unfairly have been considered the chief sexual polluters of men and society in general. Some medieval (and even contemporary) theologians’ discourses on the temptations the fair sex present to men more than suggest women are more sexually predatory than, as well as inferior to, men.

Such ideas about women began much earlier than the Middle Ages. Tertullian (160-220 AD) addressed women, saying, “Do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? You are the devil’s gateway… you are the first deserter of the divine law… on account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.”

St. Jerome believed “woman is the root of all evil; Eve in paradise was a virgin… virginity is natural and marriage (and sex) comes after the Fall.” (Parentheses mine.)

The theological reasoning goes something like the following: Eve was not able to resist temptation and so was responsible for Adam’s and mankind’s Fall. All women after Eve bore the consequences of her sin, and all had her predatory sexuality and accompanying weaknesses and sins, one of which was that of a seductress who tempted men into the sins of lust.

Alas, not all such reasoning about the inferior and inherently subordinate status of women is in the dim past. Some contemporary theologians such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, whose ideas are influential in evangelical and reformed circles, insist women will be eternally subordinate to men, as their status of subordination is characteristic of the eternally submissive relationship of Jesus to the Father within the Trinity. For Grudem and Ware, equality of redeemed men and women is not possible even when men and women are resurrected to eternal life. Both men appear to have succumbed to contemporary sexual/gender identity politics as a necessary characteristic of the Godhead. At least Aquinas averred women’s resurrected bodies were as redeemed as men’s. Their unorthodox view concerning the position of women in Heaven vaguely resembles the idea that in Paradise, there are seventy eternally submissive virgins available to men who attain blessedness.

To the credit of some feminists, secular and religious, many have strongly objected to the distorted image of women as inferior to men and as the chief locus of sin, sexual or otherwise.

Thank God.

However, as the current frenzy over the sexual abuse of women begins its descent into sexual McCarthyism, too many contemporary feminists are erring by now assigning the vice of lust almost entirely to the lustful hairy beasts of the male sex, and to the always suspect, but ill defined “patriarchy.” To put it another way, the sins of lust and aggression now have too often been attributed almost solely to men. The predations of women like the pedophile Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of the rape of her twelve-year-old student, are somehow regarded as anomalies.

For some feminists, the idea is that all will be well if and when the patriarchy is destroyed and if and when the sexually rapacious white male is deprived of power.

In sum, as is the case with extremists who believe the evil of racism is part of the genetic makeup of whites, particularly white males; feminist extremists believe men, particularly white men, are automatically predisposed to sexual predation and seldom, if ever, contain their lust. It is assumed that women are never — well very rarely — predators and are to be automatically assumed victims because men have power, the original sin of the patriarchy. Therefore, mere accusation is legitimately enough to condemn any male. Emotional distress is enough to bypass evidence and the rule of law.

Blaming one sex as more intrinsically disordered than the other ignores the fact that each sex is as inclined to evil as the other. As Chesler and others have pointed out, there is more than some truth to the accusation that women are just better at hiding their transgressions than men and that they often direct their worst toward members of their own sex. Ask any woman whose marriage has been destroyed by the pretty young thing at the office just who was preying on whom.

Sin is remarkably evenhanded phenomenon.

The capacity for evil lies in the hearts of men and women. Men are not guilty just because they are men. Women are not guilty just because they are women. Some men are guilty of predation. Some women are guilty of predation. Both can be guilty of using sexual shortcuts in order to achieve power.

If there’s to be an overhaul of the dead end of the sexual revolution we are now witnessing after decades of descent into sexual degradation, it has to start with the idea that though men and women are equally corrupt — each in their own ways toward each other and the members of their own sex — both are redeemable.

The true sexual revolution has never been attained. What we are witnessing now is the dead end of the purely negative sexual revolution begun in the 60s, during which time equality of the sexes was increasingly measured by the calculus of equal degradation, with “Everyman” and “Everywoman” being urged to continue the inexorable slide into the lust-filled second circle of Hell.

Christianity has always held out the hope of redemption for both sexes — equally, both here and in eternity. It offers the hope of both sexes’ redemption and the restoration of equality between the sexes. It urges both to be imitators of Christ.

Sadly, even within the Christian Church, doctrine and cultural practices mitigate against the Edenic and Heavenly ideal. The Church has never taken the ideal of men and women as created equally in the image of God and as equally coheirs of the Kingdom of God with enough seriousness to model those ideals here on planet earth; instead the Church has most often taken its cues from the world.

But all is not lost.

We can hope the spiritual revolution necessary for approaching ideal relationships between men and women and with their God at least will look nearer to Eden than it presently does; and that it might even approach the Heavenly ideal of men and women standing together as redeemed equals who are united to God.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

Men accused of sexual taint continue to be beheaded by the media, falling like aristocrats trundled to the guillotine. The latest in the tumbrel full of miscreants to go under the blade is Matt Lauer, who was fired from NBC’s Today show for sexual misconduct. Apparently, Lauer’s tribe numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

Or more.

But just as it seems every man is a predator and every woman has been wrongfully fondled, there is a small cloud on the horizon that augers a storm. The cloud may portend a new revolution.

Revolutions often begin with questions about truth and reality. What is the truth behind the accusations? Are men automatically guilty if accused? Should we consider whether women can be as predatory as men? Are all the accusing women innocent victims? Are none of them looking for power or money?

Maybe there is a little room for realistic cynicism.

As Angelo Codevilla recently pointed out, “Men, but mostly women, have been trading erotic services for access to power since time began.” As he observed sexual power plays during his eight years on the Senate staff, “Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.”

Codevilla’s point is that all sexual transgression, including bargaining and power mongering, is held to be entirely the fault of men. But not all can be blamed on what radical feminists see as an inherently detestable and predatory patriarchy.

Women can be just as predatory as men, sexually and otherwise. Though assigned invisibility by most contemporary feminists who have a vested interest in the myth of women as always and forever victims of men, Phyllis Chesler and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both cool-headed analysts, have shown that women can be as cruel and heartlessly manipulative toward men and other women as men can be toward women and other men.

Yes, we must recognize it has been and still sometimes is the lamentable truth that women unfairly have been considered the chief sexual polluters of men and society in general. Some medieval (and even contemporary) theologians’ discourses on the temptations the fair sex present to men more than suggest women are more sexually predatory than, as well as inferior to, men.

Such ideas about women began much earlier than the Middle Ages. Tertullian (160-220 AD) addressed women, saying, “Do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? You are the devil’s gateway… you are the first deserter of the divine law… on account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.”

St. Jerome believed “woman is the root of all evil; Eve in paradise was a virgin… virginity is natural and marriage (and sex) comes after the Fall.” (Parentheses mine.)

The theological reasoning goes something like the following: Eve was not able to resist temptation and so was responsible for Adam’s and mankind’s Fall. All women after Eve bore the consequences of her sin, and all had her predatory sexuality and accompanying weaknesses and sins, one of which was that of a seductress who tempted men into the sins of lust.

Alas, not all such reasoning about the inferior and inherently subordinate status of women is in the dim past. Some contemporary theologians such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, whose ideas are influential in evangelical and reformed circles, insist women will be eternally subordinate to men, as their status of subordination is characteristic of the eternally submissive relationship of Jesus to the Father within the Trinity. For Grudem and Ware, equality of redeemed men and women is not possible even when men and women are resurrected to eternal life. Both men appear to have succumbed to contemporary sexual/gender identity politics as a necessary characteristic of the Godhead. At least Aquinas averred women’s resurrected bodies were as redeemed as men’s. Their unorthodox view concerning the position of women in Heaven vaguely resembles the idea that in Paradise, there are seventy eternally submissive virgins available to men who attain blessedness.

To the credit of some feminists, secular and religious, many have strongly objected to the distorted image of women as inferior to men and as the chief locus of sin, sexual or otherwise.

Thank God.

However, as the current frenzy over the sexual abuse of women begins its descent into sexual McCarthyism, too many contemporary feminists are erring by now assigning the vice of lust almost entirely to the lustful hairy beasts of the male sex, and to the always suspect, but ill defined “patriarchy.” To put it another way, the sins of lust and aggression now have too often been attributed almost solely to men. The predations of women like the pedophile Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of the rape of her twelve-year-old student, are somehow regarded as anomalies.

For some feminists, the idea is that all will be well if and when the patriarchy is destroyed and if and when the sexually rapacious white male is deprived of power.

In sum, as is the case with extremists who believe the evil of racism is part of the genetic makeup of whites, particularly white males; feminist extremists believe men, particularly white men, are automatically predisposed to sexual predation and seldom, if ever, contain their lust. It is assumed that women are never — well very rarely — predators and are to be automatically assumed victims because men have power, the original sin of the patriarchy. Therefore, mere accusation is legitimately enough to condemn any male. Emotional distress is enough to bypass evidence and the rule of law.

Blaming one sex as more intrinsically disordered than the other ignores the fact that each sex is as inclined to evil as the other. As Chesler and others have pointed out, there is more than some truth to the accusation that women are just better at hiding their transgressions than men and that they often direct their worst toward members of their own sex. Ask any woman whose marriage has been destroyed by the pretty young thing at the office just who was preying on whom.

Sin is remarkably evenhanded phenomenon.

The capacity for evil lies in the hearts of men and women. Men are not guilty just because they are men. Women are not guilty just because they are women. Some men are guilty of predation. Some women are guilty of predation. Both can be guilty of using sexual shortcuts in order to achieve power.

If there’s to be an overhaul of the dead end of the sexual revolution we are now witnessing after decades of descent into sexual degradation, it has to start with the idea that though men and women are equally corrupt — each in their own ways toward each other and the members of their own sex — both are redeemable.

The true sexual revolution has never been attained. What we are witnessing now is the dead end of the purely negative sexual revolution begun in the 60s, during which time equality of the sexes was increasingly measured by the calculus of equal degradation, with “Everyman” and “Everywoman” being urged to continue the inexorable slide into the lust-filled second circle of Hell.

Christianity has always held out the hope of redemption for both sexes — equally, both here and in eternity. It offers the hope of both sexes’ redemption and the restoration of equality between the sexes. It urges both to be imitators of Christ.

Sadly, even within the Christian Church, doctrine and cultural practices mitigate against the Edenic and Heavenly ideal. The Church has never taken the ideal of men and women as created equally in the image of God and as equally coheirs of the Kingdom of God with enough seriousness to model those ideals here on planet earth; instead the Church has most often taken its cues from the world.

But all is not lost.

We can hope the spiritual revolution necessary for approaching ideal relationships between men and women and with their God at least will look nearer to Eden than it presently does; and that it might even approach the Heavenly ideal of men and women standing together as redeemed equals who are united to God.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com



Source link

Charlie Rose: One More Reason to Turn Off the Television


For more than a month, the American public has heard many stories of sexual harassment among Hollywood, media and political elite. New accusations against different perpetrators seem to emerge every other day. We have reached the point where we are no longer surprised.

It would take years for us to place all these events into proper context. What they say about our culture and our recent history is momentous. Instead of trying to digest this whole story at once, I would like to focus on one of these perpetrators in order to understand our “elite” and who they really are.

Last week, the award-winning Charlie Rose was the subject of sordid allegations by eight different women. He did not specifically deny the allegations. He was fired by CBS and PBS. Most likely, his career is over. But for several decades, Rose has been a chief source of information for the American public. A protégé of Bill Moyers, Rose has provided softball interviews for establishment media and political figures since the 1970s. He has conducted extensive interviews with world leaders, authors, establishment journalists, artists, and entertainers. Rose has walked with kings while pontificating from on high to the rest of us. He is well-educated, cultured, and, until last week, highly acclaimed and awarded.  Rose is the recipient of doctorates, both real and honorary. He was, until now, a sought-after commencement speaker at our institutions of higher learning. He is as smooth and glib as any journalist/politician.

He is the opposite of the “deplorables” that the establishment castigates. Rose and his erstwhile allies exude every indicium of sophistication that they claim the deplorables lack. Charlie Rose, Hollywood, and the entire Eastern media have brought King Louis’ Palace of Versailles into the 21st century — with predictable results. The elite have created a culture of faux sophistication where courtiers imitate them and seek favor from them, while disdaining the mere peasants of flyover country.

I am sure that Rose has dined at the finest restaurants around the world. He can probably name the chef (and even his favorite waiter) in many of those places. I am sure he always knows what wine is appropriate to order with what meal. His choices of food, entertainment, and company reflect not mere personal taste, but the desire to name-drop and impress. It worked. For many years, Rose impressed his way into a position of power.

Would Rose or his allies ever have been caught dead at a Denny’s chomping down on an ordinary hamburger? Needless to say, Rose and many others have now been caught in far worse circumstances than merely eating non-pretentious food in a non-pretentious restaurant. Rose’ honorary degrees and political connections could not rescue him. He now stands figuratively naked (in addition to his literal activities) in front of the “deplorable” audience that he once “informed” and influenced.

Of all the lessons that these episodes hold for ordinary Americans, one lesson is worth noting. The pretentiousness, refinement, education, sophistication, wealth, and connections of the elite in no way mean that they will refrain from boorish, disgusting, and revolting behavior. They are as petty, unrefined, and vile as the rest of us (I suspect much more so). We can now officially stop being impressed by their former status.

Why does this matter? Because for more decades than Charlie Rose was on the air, we have relied on the elite for our information and our very understanding of the events of the day and the policies that shape our lives. Their very sophistication and professionalism gave credence to their views, their biases and their alliances.

Only with the availability of the internet and cable have we begun to break free of our long attachment to the elite. The deplorables’ ability to ignore them in 2016 created a backlash among the elite that is, itself, a story. The 2016 election may, itself, become the model for behavior among a portion of the electorate in the future. At the very least, a large portion of the voters are prepared to ignore the establishment media instead of engaging it by means of their former fealty or their recent pushback. The influence of the old media continues to wane. But the scandals of late 2017 should make this trend more pronounced.

We already know that the mainstream media (and their elitist allies) are out of touch. Until now, we have only complained about “media bias.” We have waited in vain for some degree of fairness with each successive broadcast. We continue to pay for movies and watch television in the foolish expectation that we will receive entertainment instead of propaganda. But these scandals should relieve us of these expectations. The image of Charlie Rose abusing his staff should forever make the rest of us forget all his honorary degrees and friendships with world leaders. We should once and for all understand how little value there is to being a member of the elite and why we should not care what they say or believe.

Instead of tuning in and arguing with them, it is time to tune out find some other leisure activity. Pretentiousness, sophistication, world-travel, and the trappings of power are expensive. This expense is borne by the rest of us every time we turn on the television — whether we agree with what we see or not. It is time to starve the beast. We do not need literally to storm the Bastille. We need only turn off our televisions. What better reason to tune them out than the revelation that so many of them are sexual predators behind the scenes who put their clothes back on only to appear on camera. Only when we learn to ignore them will they lose influence over our country and the policies that oppress the rest of us. 

For more than a month, the American public has heard many stories of sexual harassment among Hollywood, media and political elite. New accusations against different perpetrators seem to emerge every other day. We have reached the point where we are no longer surprised.

It would take years for us to place all these events into proper context. What they say about our culture and our recent history is momentous. Instead of trying to digest this whole story at once, I would like to focus on one of these perpetrators in order to understand our “elite” and who they really are.

Last week, the award-winning Charlie Rose was the subject of sordid allegations by eight different women. He did not specifically deny the allegations. He was fired by CBS and PBS. Most likely, his career is over. But for several decades, Rose has been a chief source of information for the American public. A protégé of Bill Moyers, Rose has provided softball interviews for establishment media and political figures since the 1970s. He has conducted extensive interviews with world leaders, authors, establishment journalists, artists, and entertainers. Rose has walked with kings while pontificating from on high to the rest of us. He is well-educated, cultured, and, until last week, highly acclaimed and awarded.  Rose is the recipient of doctorates, both real and honorary. He was, until now, a sought-after commencement speaker at our institutions of higher learning. He is as smooth and glib as any journalist/politician.

He is the opposite of the “deplorables” that the establishment castigates. Rose and his erstwhile allies exude every indicium of sophistication that they claim the deplorables lack. Charlie Rose, Hollywood, and the entire Eastern media have brought King Louis’ Palace of Versailles into the 21st century — with predictable results. The elite have created a culture of faux sophistication where courtiers imitate them and seek favor from them, while disdaining the mere peasants of flyover country.

I am sure that Rose has dined at the finest restaurants around the world. He can probably name the chef (and even his favorite waiter) in many of those places. I am sure he always knows what wine is appropriate to order with what meal. His choices of food, entertainment, and company reflect not mere personal taste, but the desire to name-drop and impress. It worked. For many years, Rose impressed his way into a position of power.

Would Rose or his allies ever have been caught dead at a Denny’s chomping down on an ordinary hamburger? Needless to say, Rose and many others have now been caught in far worse circumstances than merely eating non-pretentious food in a non-pretentious restaurant. Rose’ honorary degrees and political connections could not rescue him. He now stands figuratively naked (in addition to his literal activities) in front of the “deplorable” audience that he once “informed” and influenced.

Of all the lessons that these episodes hold for ordinary Americans, one lesson is worth noting. The pretentiousness, refinement, education, sophistication, wealth, and connections of the elite in no way mean that they will refrain from boorish, disgusting, and revolting behavior. They are as petty, unrefined, and vile as the rest of us (I suspect much more so). We can now officially stop being impressed by their former status.

Why does this matter? Because for more decades than Charlie Rose was on the air, we have relied on the elite for our information and our very understanding of the events of the day and the policies that shape our lives. Their very sophistication and professionalism gave credence to their views, their biases and their alliances.

Only with the availability of the internet and cable have we begun to break free of our long attachment to the elite. The deplorables’ ability to ignore them in 2016 created a backlash among the elite that is, itself, a story. The 2016 election may, itself, become the model for behavior among a portion of the electorate in the future. At the very least, a large portion of the voters are prepared to ignore the establishment media instead of engaging it by means of their former fealty or their recent pushback. The influence of the old media continues to wane. But the scandals of late 2017 should make this trend more pronounced.

We already know that the mainstream media (and their elitist allies) are out of touch. Until now, we have only complained about “media bias.” We have waited in vain for some degree of fairness with each successive broadcast. We continue to pay for movies and watch television in the foolish expectation that we will receive entertainment instead of propaganda. But these scandals should relieve us of these expectations. The image of Charlie Rose abusing his staff should forever make the rest of us forget all his honorary degrees and friendships with world leaders. We should once and for all understand how little value there is to being a member of the elite and why we should not care what they say or believe.

Instead of tuning in and arguing with them, it is time to tune out find some other leisure activity. Pretentiousness, sophistication, world-travel, and the trappings of power are expensive. This expense is borne by the rest of us every time we turn on the television — whether we agree with what we see or not. It is time to starve the beast. We do not need literally to storm the Bastille. We need only turn off our televisions. What better reason to tune them out than the revelation that so many of them are sexual predators behind the scenes who put their clothes back on only to appear on camera. Only when we learn to ignore them will they lose influence over our country and the policies that oppress the rest of us. 



Source link