March 24, 2022
Media Hypicrisy on Child Sex Abuse
Timothy Birdnow
In U.S. v. Cooper, for example in Judge Jackson sentenced Ryan Cooper to the lowest sentence allowed, 60 months, for his conviction of distribution of child pornography. There are numerous other cases.
Yet now the media is circling the wagons in her defense. See this and this for two prime examples.
Strange how touching the media's concern for protecting a judicial nominee over this issue is now.
They never extended the same courtesy to Catholic priests accused of pedophilia.
They repeatedly eviscerated judges who granted leniency to Catholic priests accused of sex abuse. See this site for a few examples.
Amazing their hypocrisy.
The reality is pedophilia is less rampant in Catholic schools than in public schools.
See here.
But the media led us to believe every priest was a chester.
But at the same time they ignored molestation in Hollywood. And they ignore some rather interesting behaviors by President Joe Biden, including sniffing of little girls hair.
They were also quiet about the antics of Bill Clinton, who often flew on the Lolita Express to Jeffrey Epstein's Slave Island.
And now they defend his SCOTUS pick, who shows herself soft on kiddy porn and molestation. Strange how they hold such a double standard.
A quick thought; the media is now covering for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson as she is being asked about her rulings on pedophilia. Brown is accused of being soft on the heinous exploitation of children via kiddy porn distribution.Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker. She’s been advocating for it since law school. This goes beyond "soft on crime.†I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 16, 2022
In U.S. v. Cooper, for example in Judge Jackson sentenced Ryan Cooper to the lowest sentence allowed, 60 months, for his conviction of distribution of child pornography. There are numerous other cases.
Yet now the media is circling the wagons in her defense. See this and this for two prime examples.
Strange how touching the media's concern for protecting a judicial nominee over this issue is now.
They never extended the same courtesy to Catholic priests accused of pedophilia.
They repeatedly eviscerated judges who granted leniency to Catholic priests accused of sex abuse. See this site for a few examples.
Amazing their hypocrisy.
The reality is pedophilia is less rampant in Catholic schools than in public schools.
See here.
But the media led us to believe every priest was a chester.
But at the same time they ignored molestation in Hollywood. And they ignore some rather interesting behaviors by President Joe Biden, including sniffing of little girls hair.
They were also quiet about the antics of Bill Clinton, who often flew on the Lolita Express to Jeffrey Epstein's Slave Island.
And now they defend his SCOTUS pick, who shows herself soft on kiddy porn and molestation. Strange how they hold such a double standard.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:41 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 3 kb.
1
First I need to point out that your a racist for questioning Judge "It" Jackson. Since it cant define what a woman is I believe It will describe it nicely. The large testicles it must have to be unable to describe what it is biologically and yet promote itself as being a black woman. Another double standard. And they want it on the SC! My cat knows what sex she is and proves it by me being wrapped around her paw.
Posted by: Mike at March 24, 2022 05:24 PM (dEidV)
2
What seems to be missing from the Jackson arguments is something I read a few weeks back, which is that as a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, she has a record of something like 40+ % of her decisions being reversed. I don't think that's something we want for someone on SCOTUS.
I would really like to see the G.O.P. come down hard on her about that, and about her evasive answers. And although it might not be in perfectly good taste, I wouldn't mind if she were questioned on whether she's been nominated to fill a quota. Which she has, of course.
I would really like to see the G.O.P. come down hard on her about that, and about her evasive answers. And although it might not be in perfectly good taste, I wouldn't mind if she were questioned on whether she's been nominated to fill a quota. Which she has, of course.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at March 24, 2022 10:48 PM (551jX)
3
Yeah Mike; Zhe or Xi or whatever they call themselves cannot define male and female. May as well say you can't define anything else.
What happens if a rape case is before the Court? How do you rape something that is not definable from a sexual standpoint?
And if we extend that logic to other things, how can we define anything at all? All law is meaningless. If you don't BELIEVE you committed a crime, does that mean you did not? That is the upshot of her philosophy.
What happens if a rape case is before the Court? How do you rape something that is not definable from a sexual standpoint?
And if we extend that logic to other things, how can we define anything at all? All law is meaningless. If you don't BELIEVE you committed a crime, does that mean you did not? That is the upshot of her philosophy.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 25, 2022 09:22 AM (Dzyvy)
4
That is what is so maddening about this pick Dana; she clearly is an affirmative action choice (in violation of Federal law) and a miserably poor judge to boot. The public needs to know that, even if the GOP cannot stop her confirmation.
I was wondering if quorum rules could be used to stop the vote. The Senate requires 51 Senators be present. BUT there is no roll call to determine if that is the case; someone from the minority would have to be present to demand a roll call, thus making a quorum in this case (I assume the V.P. is not considered in the quorum.) So a walkout by the GOP would not stop her.
Maybe the Republicans should think about finding ways to prevent Democratic Senators from making the vote? Steal all of Patrick Leahy's Depends maybe?
I was wondering if quorum rules could be used to stop the vote. The Senate requires 51 Senators be present. BUT there is no roll call to determine if that is the case; someone from the minority would have to be present to demand a roll call, thus making a quorum in this case (I assume the V.P. is not considered in the quorum.) So a walkout by the GOP would not stop her.
Maybe the Republicans should think about finding ways to prevent Democratic Senators from making the vote? Steal all of Patrick Leahy's Depends maybe?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 25, 2022 09:29 AM (Dzyvy)
5
Well, I think that your last idea is a winner, fer sherr! 
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at March 25, 2022 10:32 PM (551jX)
6
Hehehehe!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 26, 2022 06:53 AM (7WPTi)
24kb generated in CPU 0.0911, elapsed 0.7189 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.7139 seconds, 165 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.7139 seconds, 165 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
