“From the rising of the sun even to its setting, My Name will be great among the nations,” says Yahweh Sabaoth.
(Malachi 1: 11)
_____________
#####
If you are on the SnyderTalk email distribution list, clicking on the title at the top of the email will open SnyderTalk. Emails don’t contain videos that are very informative.
#####
Evil has Found a Home in the Democrat Party
A few days ago, I posted this article on Facebook: “Patricia Hewitt called for age of consent to be lowered to ten”:
Patricia Hewitt was forced to apologise after it was revealed that she had called for the age of sexual consent to be lowered to ten.
The document published in the former Labour cabinet minister’s name also called for incest to be legalised.
A National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) press release quoted in The Sun issued in Miss Hewitt’s sole name in Mach 1976 read: “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over ten can be proved.”
The document, which relates to an NCCL report on sexual law reformed continues: “The report argues that the crime of incest should be abolished.”
“In our view, no benefit accrues to anyone by making incest a crime when committed between mutually consenting persons over the age of consent.”
The article attracted a lot of attention, because most people who read it thought it was outside the realm of possibility. Well, they were wrong.
At the University of Virginia
I was a professor at the University of Virginia. I taught leadership among other courses. I enjoyed teaching leadership more than any other course because it was so open-ended.
Each semester, I explained to my students that leaders set the tone in an organization. If leaders are moral, upstanding people, they will lead their organization in that direction. If they are evil, they will lead their organization in that direction.
One day, I was telling my leadership class that there is a group of people in our country that believes the concept of “the age of consent” is obsolete. They think the age of consent should be abolished.
A healthy percentage of my student’s thought I was just trying to provoke the class into a discussion about morality. They were half right.
I was provoking them into a discussion about morality, but I was also telling them the truth. There really is a group of people that thinks girls at any age should be able to have sex with anyone no matter how old the girls are. That group includes men and women.
At UVA, more than 50% of our students were women, and the women students were better students than the men students. I taught at UVA for 25 years. I have lots of data points to back up that conclusion.
I got the discussion started by asking the class what they thought about lowering the age of consent to 12-years-old. Most men don’t feel comfortable talking about that kind of subject in an open setting, but women don’t mind at all.
One of my women students said, “That’s too young. Little girls don’t know enough to consent to sex.”
After some discussion, I got the class to admit that the age of consent is arbitrary. Some 12-year-old girls are mentally and emotionally ready to consent to sexual activity and some 21-year-old women, for example, are not. It depends on the person.
Then, I asked the class this question: “If the age of consent is arbitrary, where should we set the age of consent for legal purposes?”
One woman said, “12 is too young.”
I said, “Okay, if 12 is too young, what should it be?”
At that time, the age of consent in Virginia was 18. She said, “18 is okay.”
In a class, there will always be someone, usually more than one person, who will object to whatever the status quo happens to be. Another woman said, “I think 15 is better.”
That got the ball rolling. I sat back and watched the class talk through the subject in great detail. Most of the men in the class remained silent. The men who dared to speak knew that they were venturing onto unfamiliar turf that was loaded with landmines. They walked carefully.
This was “Women’s Territory”. Men would be allowed to comment, but the decision about when women should be allowed to have sex was not theirs to make. The women made that perfectly clear.
When the discussion died down, I said, “Why not set the age of consent at 10-years-old?”
“That’s too young!” one woman blurted out. “10-year-old girls aren’t ready to make that kind of decision.”
I said, “I’ll bet some 10-year-old girls are ready.”
One woman agreed. She explained her logic, and that got the discussion going again.
When the class was through talking, I said, “The age of consent is an arbitrary decision. Almost no age is the right age for all girls. So, where should we set the age of consent so that it’s the best age for society as a whole? But it’s not just about the age of consent. Where should we set the limits on a wide range of issues so that society as a whole is protected?”
The people at the helm in every organization are at the forefront leading the way toward tomorrow. They are taking us into a future that is not like today. It may be better or it may be worse, but it will be different. Leaders are constantly preparing us to accept what’s best as they see it. They can’t take us anyplace if we refuse to go.
Testing the Perimeter
In England, former Labour cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt floated a trial balloon. She said that she thinks the age of consent should be lowered to 10-years-old. She must have believed there was a possibility that she would get support for that idea, or she wouldn’t have brought it up. Hewitt must have thought that the time was right.
Using military terminology, Hewitt was “testing the perimeter”. She was looking for soft spots to determine where an attack on the status quo might succeed.
Hewitt got her wrist slapped and had to apologize, but she didn’t tell people what she really believes. Hewitt thinks there shouldn’t be an age of consent. In her world, British society hasn’t “progressed” enough yet to accept what’s best for them from her point of view.
I know that’s true, because Hewitt also brought up incest and suggested that it is an antiquated concept. In her world sex and marriage between brothers and sisters should be considered normal and legitimate if the parties involved are old enough to make informed decisions.
There’s that “age of consent” again, but this time it involves incest. Hewitt was testing the perimeter.
How low will society go?
The age of consent isn’t the real issue. Neither is incest.
Pedophiles have lived among us all along. People who believe that sex and marriage between close relatives is okay live among us, too. So do people who believe that sodomy is okay, that gender is a choice, that murdering unborn children is not a crime, and that sex between humans and animals is a matter of preference.
I’ll stop there, because the list of depravities is endless. What we think about those issues changes over time. In the 1950s, abortion was seen as murder by most people. Today, it’s seen by most people as a constitutional “right”.
Like I said, tomorrow may be better or worse than today, but it will be different. Tomorrow will be what we allow it to be. Our future can be bright or dark. It’s our choice.
Justice Kavanaugh and Due Process
It gets murkier. Due process is sacrosanct in our legal system. The constitutional right of due process is as basic as it gets. No one is considered guilty without evidence that a crime was committed.
Due process is there for our protection. It’s designed to make sure that innocent people aren’t convicted without proof. Under our constitutional system, an accusation alone can’t be considered proof of guilt.
President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. His record is exemplary, but Democrats vowed to block his Senate confirmation by using “any means necessary”.
Low and behold, “miraculously” out of the blue a horde of accusers stepped forward to attack Kavanaugh. They accused him of almost everything under the sun: sexual assault, drugging young women, and participating in gang rape.
Not one shred of evidence was presented. Accusations were all the attackers had, and that’s all they needed as far as Democrats were concerned. Democrats led the charge against Kavanaugh in the Senate and rallied their forces outside the Senate for made-for-television spectacles.
If they could have done it, Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker would have lynched Kavanaugh in the Judiciary Committee Hearing Room. I’m not speaking figuratively.
Christine Blasey Ford was the chief accuser. Senate Democrats gushed when she walked into the hearing room. They pandered in the most shameless ways imaginable. They abandoned any sense of decency and any respect for the rule of law.
Ford was lying. Senate Democrats were complicit. All of them should be investigated for criminal wrongdoing. See “Too Much is at Stake to Sweep Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegation Under the Rug”.
The sign in the picture below says, “We Believe All Survivors”. It should have read, “We Believe All Accusers”.
Those people are demonstrating that they are willing to abandon one of the most important constitutional protections we have because they believe convenient lies that support the Democrat social agenda.
The ringleaders aren’t in the picture. They are in the Senate.
Evil has Found a Home in the Democrat Party
Evil really does exist, and it has found a home in the Democrat Party.
Think about it. Any perversion you can name has become a cause that the Democrat Party champions.
Premeditated murder of unborn children: No problem for Democrats.
Sodomy: Democrats love it.
LGBTQ?: The litany of perversions championed by the Democrat Party seems endless. The “?” doesn’t designate the end of the list. It suggests that I have no idea what else Democrats will add to their list of approved depravities.
Due process: To Democrats, like the Constitution, it’s an antiquated concept, a relic of the past.
#####
_____________
#####
#####
_____________
#####
“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17: 22-24)
