Forget about prosecuting terrorists, drug dealers, and murderers; get those pornographers!

Of course, the first three are not mutually exclusive.

The crap that The Free Lance–Star publishes in their opinion space:

Imagine that 19 pro-family and pro-decency groups such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family called a press conference to criticize the Bush administration. Wouldn’t every network, news magazine, and major daily cover the event?

No. None showed up at the National Press Club on a recent Monday. Why? The criticism of Bush was over his failure “to vigorously enforce federal obscenity laws.” Yawn.

What could the press have covered? How about this blistering criticism of Bush’s Justice Department by Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, the event’s organizer:

“In 2002 we created a Web site to give citizens a way to report violations of federal Internet obscenity laws. Before doing so, we discussed it with Justice Department, and they said, “Great!” By February 2008, 70,000 citizen complaints were filed.

“After six years and 70,000 complaints, the Justice Department has not acted on a single complaint,” asserted Peters.

Janet Shaw Crouse, of Concerned Women for America, lamented: “Obscenity is not taken seriously even by those legally charged with prosecuting offenders. So while the Justice Department is not looking, our homes are being invaded by blatantly obscene so-called ‘entertainment.'”


And George W. Bush, who promised enforcement, reneged when elected. Hence, the press conference.

I recommend that the presidential candidates and all candidates for Congress be asked if they’d support creation of a new Obscenity Commission that can document pornography’s harm and call for specific reforms in a new report.

Michael McManus, president of Marriage Savers, is a syndicated writer.

The Free Lance–Star actually prints stuff from this loon?:

This is the same guy that essentially said don’t let your children around homosexuals because they will sexually abuse your kids (“Red Flags of a Pedophile”).

This is the same moron that called Israel’s response to the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli Army corporal, by the terrorist group Hamas “a massive overreaction that dwarfs the scale of the original incident”, “unbiblical”, “and constitutes possible war crimes” (“Israeli Retaliation Is Excessive”). Negotiating worked real well for the Israelis since Gilad Shalit is still being held hostage by Hamas almost two years later (Haaretz).

When Israel started targeting Hezbollah assets in Lebanon after Hezbollah abducted Israeli Army Master Sergeant Ehud Goldwasser and First Sergeant Eldad Regev, and launched continuous rocket attacks into Israel in July of 2006; McManus called the response “outrageous”. He said the rocket attacks “killed only 38 civilians and 12 soldiers”. He also said “[t]he U.S. Israeli bias has rendered America utterly inept” and that “Israel should be required to pay for the rebuilding of Lebanon” (“Israel’s Retaliation Is Dangerous”). The ceasefire that McManus wanted so badly hasn’t worked out so well for Israel since rocket attacks have continue to this day and the status of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are unknown (Yedioth Internet). In one case after the “ceasefire”, a 13 month-old Gaza (Palestinian) girl was killed — not by an Israeli strike — but by a rocket incompetently launched by Hamas (AP via International Herald Tribune).

Can I call him an anti-Semite yet?

Mr. Holier-than-thou, the very-essence-and-manifestation-of-purity-and-truth, didn’t bother to disclose to his readers that he was being paid $4,000 and his organization “Marriage Savers” was receiving $49,000 from the Bush administration to promote certain administration initiatives and policies (CBS News).

Speaking of his organization “Marriage Savers”: Michael McManus was paid $69,643 in FY06 by his “non-profit”. His wife, Harriet McManus (presumably, same address listed as Michael McManus), was paid $35,000 in FY06. Their two salaries account for 45.44% of total organizational expenses ($104,643 out of $230,276) (FY06 IRS Form 990, p. 5 & p. 1).

Among some of the income sources for his “non-profit” include: “Royalties received on the sale of publications” and “fees that are paid to the organization for motivational speeches” (Ibid, p. 20).

I gotta get in on one of those “non-profit” scams.

Not to mention that Michael McManus has a great house including a tennis court. I kid you not (JPEG file).

Throwing stones and glass houses and whatnot, I guess.

And does this moron know the standards that are required to be met to prosecute “obscenity”? Quoting from CyberLaw: Text and Cases, 2nd edition, Ferrera et al., p. 315:

The three-prong Miller test resulting from the Miller v. California [413 U.S. 15 (1973)] case defines obscene material as having the following attributes:

  1. It arouses “Prurient interest” that does not conform to “contemporary community standards.”
  2. It is “patiently offensives.”
  3. It “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

Have fun trying to prove that in a court of law. Or as Ferrera et al. put it (Ibid, p. 318):

Thus we should reiterate that the factors and standards for obscenity vary greatly, depending on the culture of the state, city or town, or for that matter, foreign country. This makes it virtually impossible for a provider and others [including prosecutors] to determine, with any degree of predictability, whether the material they distribute, transmit, post, and so on, would be deemed obscene.

Meanwhile, terrorists, drug dealers, and murderers wouldn’t be getting prosecuted.

And, now, the obligatory official training video of the Republican Nanny State:

[flv: 512 288]

Get the stones, torches, and pitchforks: We’re going to run those Mormons (and others) out of town!

The WaPo:

If 16th Street is famous for leading straight to the White House, it is also God’s Boulevard, with at least 45 congregations lining the seven-mile stretch between Lafayette Square and Silver Spring.

But love thy neighbor? Not this time.

The Mormon church’s plan to build another house of worship, one with a steeple-topped tower that will rise 105 feet, is inspiring less-than-holy thoughts among residents who recoil at the prospect of a new flock traversing their streets.


Dozens of homeowners have expressed opposition to the new church with lawn signs that read, “Too Big, Too Much, Too Many.” And the Mormons are finding little support from the neighborhood’s clergy, including one pastor who said his objection is rooted not in architecture, but theology.

“They don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah; they accept him as the prophet,” said Edward Wilson, pastor at Church of Christ, a block from the Mormon site. “It’s wrong, I disagree with it, and I wouldn’t want them in the neighborhood.”

Wow, way to be accepting to other religions.

Using this guy’s standards, no one except for religions that meet his standards should be allowed to build a place of worship.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was either the Messiah or a prophet (

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but not the Messiah, nor was he crucified, nor was he the son of God (The Guardian).

Buddhists and Hindus have varying views of Jesus. But I doubt this pastor would accept Buddhists since they don’t believe in a Creator God (The [Colorado Springs] Gazette) and Hindus believe in more than one god (Encyclopædia Britannica).

Again, using this guy’s hate-mongering standards: None of these religions should be allowed to build synagogues, mosques, etc.