Want to know a good reason to be a right winger? Check out this article from Reuters.  My comments are in green.

Pedophiles to launch political party

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage. Before you know it, anyone out of diapers will be fair game.

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!" Doubt it. This is yet another case of cooked frog.  (i.e. if you put a frog in boiling water, he jumps out but if you put him in cold water and turn the heat up gradually, he'll be simmered and separating before he knows what hit him...) 

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether. And there you have it.

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper. Children are curious about gas stoves, too, should we let them hold a match to the pilot light?

"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium. There's a reason certain things are taboo, dumb a$$. (Sorry about the swear - I'm getting more and more miffed as I read this a second time...)

"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters. Hmm.  Wonder why the negativism?

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan. Shocked is always the first reaction. Then the debate starts.  After a few roundtable discussions and about 35,000 mentions in the press, tolerance is the byword.  Within a few years, tolerance becomes acceptance and eventually, the behavior is embraced. Want proof?  Watch Will and Grace.

An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal. Those are roughly the same figures that opposed gay marriage 5 years ago - now there is a slim (single digit) majority against legalization of homosexual unions. Think about it!

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the AD daily.   Ya think?  Of course, the next arguments will include "it's natural",  "there is evidence of premature sexual activity in the animal world"  and "there may be a genetic predisposition"...Sound familiar?

Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established, ANP news agency reported.  Can I just ask where the hell these "right-wing lawmakers" were when the Dutch society first got thrown into the pot of cool water???

Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Pedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."

The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening. Have they never seen soap operas?  I'd say we already lost this battle - notice they want VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY available in the evenings - they aren't even talking about pay-per-view here.  They wanted it piped into everyone's homes.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said. Toddlers - that's the 2 and under crowd. Got it?  Usually, not even potty trained yet.  Bestiality is apparently okay also so long as the poor beast doesn't get hurt - how thoughtful.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all. 

And there you have it, folks.  The next step.  Don't convince yourself that this movement is a fringe or that it is only going to impact loose-moraled European nations.  America is only a few steps behind Europe with respect to social libertarianism.  For some reason we believe in regulating businesses but allowing individuals to completely debase the species. 

Lately, I feel like Lot, only instead of men beating down my door to defile those under my roof, the sickos are piped right in through the internet, television and radio.  They are marching in our streets and force feeding their propaganda to our children through the public school system.  And they are slowly leading people away with flattery - selling the idea to the masses and the younger generations that the pinnacle of intellectualism is tolerance of the most intolerable acts. 

As concerned citizens, we must stop the erosion of the most basic values of human decency.  We must speak out.  We must climb out of the simmering stew and reclaim our freedom from degradation.  The slope is slippery and it begins with the acceptance of anything less than traditional marriage as a legitimate union of consenting adults.  Call your senators.  Write to your representatives.  Demand that they vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Ammendment.

Last night I was up late gunning for some outrageous bloggers and aiming at some outrageous issues.  Some writers are nuts and some issues are nuts.  And last night I wrote about a little of both.  Drawing fire is always fun but I didn't expect to find the gold mine that I did when I ran into Ginny.  (Let me make it clear that I am not calling Ginny outrageous or nutty - in deed, it is the issue we conversed about that is nuts!)

Ginny is clearly a woman who has had a hard life and her views are colored by her experiences.  The same could be said for all of us.  In my honest and most respectful opinion, Ginny's emotions seem to have clouded her judgement on the Free Speech issue.  Here is one of her comments:

"Let me explain one of my problems with public prayer that has a little too much ‘flavor’ to it. I had Seasonal Affective Disorder for 11 years when I lived near Elmendorf AFB in AK. I wasn’t diagnosed until 5 years into it. In spite of a multifaceted, intense treatment protocol, every year it would get worse. I contemplated suicide for years and would not do it because I knew the kids could not be ‘left behind’ in this miserable world if I wasn’t staying. And I wasn’t going to do it if either of them would know for a nanosecond what was coming. Every year I asked, I pleaded. I never rejected Jesus, he never accepted me that I was aware of. The last year when I figured out how to do it, I was going to get the guns and was able to stop myself 1 more time - because of my medical knowledge. That summer I moved and have been fine since. Except when some public prayer reminds me of those awful days and nights, waiting and hoping for an answer that never came.
So, forgive me, I’ve been through hell, and I’m a born again Secular Humanist."

According to Ginny's logic, military chaplains should not be able to invoke the name of Jesus because she has Seasonal Affective Disorder?  Okay, that's an oversimplistic interpretation.  Is it then, that because Ginny has felt disillusioned with her Christian faith and now feels uncomfortable with preachers of a belief she does not espouse that she refuses to allow them first amendment rights? 

Is there a clearer example out there of the philosophy "Free speech sould be protected... as long as it is speech I like"? 

In Ginny's defense, she also makes the following statement:

"All I, and most of the rest of us, ask: is that SOME Christians turn the volume down on their public comments"

I can respect that sentiment but that goes both ways.  When are television shows and movies going to stop denegrating people of faith?  When does that broad brush that you detest going to stop painting me as an abortion clinic bomber?  When will people stop assuming that I am a homophobic bigot because I believe that God ordained a pattern for families?  Tell, me Ginny, when?  If you've traveled in academic circles, you know just how browbeaten believers are.  You can't mention any allegiance to faith without a caveat or disclaimer so that people think you aren't too serious about it. 

Let me propose a truce.  You say what you like and I'll say what I like and as long as neither of us is calling for violence or a violation of the other's pursuit of life, liberty and property, we let it go. We'll call it the First Amendment.