The US Media frenzy continues in the pre-election countdown. Am I alone in finding it hard to believe that so much anti-Republican propaganda could be manufactured from Mark Foley’s homosexual email exchanges with a Congressional page? Last Friday’s Wall Street Journal has column after column devoted to the “Foley Scandal”. It starts on the front page (no pun intended) and merits thousands of words inside, dwarfing any other topic.
I have commented before on this website, that the Journal is supposed to be conservative and pro-Republican, but that the reporters are Leftist to a man and woman. Jackie Calmes, who has never written a single sentence in the paper that is helpful to the Republicans, leads the way. Two other masters of Leftist propaganda, Yochi Dreazen and John Harwood also do their stuff on the Foley issue. No doubt, the Journal’s Jeanne Cummings and her colleagues, all of them daily purveyors of anti conservative drivel are typing away at home for Monday’s edition.
None of these “reporters” reveal any interest in Foley, the young men involved, the sources of the story or its journey from victim to newsrooms. The sole focus in every article is how much damage the “scandal” is doing to Republican electoral chances in November. All are gloatingly predicting that it must lead to a Democrat victory. We should remember that whilst these reporters and the editor are having orgasms over this issue, North Korea is throwing the Far East into political turmoil, Islamic Imperialists are flexing muscles throughout Europe and US troops are dying to protect America’s security in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let us get the Mark Foley episode into perspective. He resigned as soon as his sexual communications became public and he made no attempt to excuse himself. His victims, if that is what they are, have so far not alleged that anything physical ever occurred. All the explicit communications he sent to the young men were instant messages and concealed from any person in authority for years. The emails that were reported by a parent could only be described as inappropriate. The parents of the young man asked that the matter be dealt with quietly – hardly an unreasonable request in the circumstances and one that most people in authority would have respected.
What do I mean by “in the circumstances”? The boy concerned was at least 16 years old and unlikely to be corrupted unless things went further. His parents were alerted. Foley was a confident political operative and man-of-the-world and presumably not a person against whom one would make accusations without solid evidence. He was not an employee of Hastert’s. He was homosexual and therefore a member of a minority that few in public life dare to impugn these days. The homosexual activist organizations have created a public climate whereby no-one is allowed to make a link between homosexual men and pedophilia. In creating this climate they have been robustly supported by Leftists and the Media Class. The Boy Scouts Of America have been savagely persecuted everywhere for taking the view that homosexual men and young boys are better kept apart. As far as I am aware, Congressional pages are all 16 or older and in many countries where homosexual practices have been welcomed as normal and “mainstream”, the age of sexual consent has been lowered to 16. Leftists and Wall Street Journalists always claim that this is enlightened and homosexual couples are now permitted to adopt and foster young boys.
I have no doubt that several Republican colleagues of Foley were suspicious of his attitude to the young men who came to help and they probably whispered their concerns to Hastert. I have been a manager in the past and people have whispered to me their suspicions and furtive accusations against a member of a minority group and I have learned that I was thus placed in a lose-lose situation. Any person in a position of authority who challenges a homosexual employee or colleague on flimsy evidence, might just as well walk the plank. If Hastert had acted sooner, he would have been deserted by all of the whispering accusers as soon as the flack started to fly. You can bet he would have been labeled a homophobe by every media scribbler and every Democrat politician.
I would wager that Congress has many sexual predators who regard young pages of both sexes as fair game. Fancying the vulnerable young is not a peculiarly homosexual weakness and some young people are predators too. It is now known that some of the instant messages were deliberately encouraged by pages to exploit Foley’s vulnerability. On this website we oppose same-sex marriage and we warn against the undue influence of homosexuals in the Media Class. However, we recognize that sexual appetites are often destructive and that human nature is what it is and that we are all vulnerable. Most of those (including Republican Congressmen) who now describe Foley’s Internet exchanges as “disgusting” and beyond the Pale, should remember the Biblical warning about “he who casts the first stone”.
The charges of hypocrisy that the Wall Street journalists are making against Hastert and other Republicans are disingenuous. The real hypocrisy is coming from the Media Class and its agents in the Democrat Party. Their interest is not about protecting young pages from House predators, nor is it about uncovering the facts of this case. It is also not fuelled by any disgust with Mark Foley. It is all about manipulating the news to remove the Republicans from power in November. The Foley “scandal” is part of a bigger media campaign that includes AP’s digging into Allen’s financial records in Virginia, playing down good economic news, falling gas prices and a dramatic reduction of the budget deficit by $70bn, and talking up every Democrat candidate in a Republican-held seat.
In the previous article on this website, we introduced Media Man. Well, he is hard at work and will be for the next few weeks, and he is not a figment of my imagination.