The Robomney Effect

[Jefferson]

The Robomney Effect

This is the show from Thursday, May 17th 2012.

SUMMARY:

* Violent Crime: Bob & co-host Doug McBurney discuss the state of domestic tranquility and the epidemic of violent crime in America and ask why the FBI publishes the statistics on crime related to illegal drug use, alcohol abuse, “hate crimes,” and other categories, but not fornication-related crime (including homosexual crime).

* Big Homosexual Donor Dumps Romney: Richard Grenell resigned as Romney’s national security and foreign policy spokesperson after only a few weeks on that job and switched his support from Romney to Obama (two sides of the same coin: regardless of the outcome, it's tails, we lose). Since Obama has, as he said, “evolved” to support homosexual marriage, campaign cash has been piling up.

* Pro-Homosexual New York Court Decriminalizes "Merely" Viewing Child Porn: The New York Court of Appeals ruled that “merely viewing” child porn on the internet does not constitute a crime.

Today's Resource: Meet the Apostle Peter in this important Bible study. Have you considered why Peter addresses his letters to no well-known recipients? Rather, similarly to James, John, and Jude, he sends them generically to the circumcision believers scattered abroad. Why? Meanwhile, Peter mentions the Apostle Paul, who addresses his epistles to many well-known leaders and specific regional churches. Teacher Bob Enyart demonstrates that understanding the big picture of the Bible, its plot, helps to see even such small books as First Peter and Second Peter in their proper perspectives. Such biblical observations go a long way toward explaining the differences between Peter and Paul. For as Peter himself wrote of, "our beloved brother Paul" who "has written to you as also in all his epistles… in which are some things hard to understand…"

This fascinating Bible study is available in a 6-DVD set, on MP3-CD or MP3 download. You can click to order online or call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

 

[Granite]

Violent crime is actually on the decline nationwide for anyone interested in, ya know...facts:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4457824...ime-decline-why-low-inflation-among-theories/

Also the fact that homosexuality isn't illegal might be the reason the FBI doesn't consider it a...ya know...crime.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Why is it that the words "homosexuality" and "child porn" (i.e. molestation) seem to go hand in hand?

Granite, your thoughts? (I say it's a "vast right wing conspiracy!").

 

[Lighthouse]

How do they define "viewing"?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

How do they define "viewing"?

"The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second.

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.

"Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote."

 

[Lighthouse]

"The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second.

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.

"Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote."

So if someone is simply looking for legal pornography and stumbles across child pornography because some sick, disgusting, perverted individual posted it to a website and the staff of said website had not yet deleted it [most likely they are unaware of its presence] then they cannot be prosecuted? Makes sense to me.

However, if it can be proven an individual went looking for child porn, such as repeated viewings of the webpage hosting the image, then they should prosecute. Does this law allow for that?