Nancy Pelosi supports illegal Man/Boy Love

[fossten]

When Nancy Met Harry
By Jeffrey Lord

Published 10/5/2006 12:08:06 AM


The Pride Parade.

That's what it's called in San Francisco when the community gathers for a parade during the annual San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Celebration. It is, by all accounts, a wingding of a celebration, too. As the San Francisco Chronicle, the media sponsor of the Pride Parade, put it in their special section devoted to the celebration in 2001, the parade is "the granddaddy, grandma and grandtrannie of 'em all." (That would be trannie as in "transvestite.")

The paper, bursting with civic pride, was also pleased to publish the marching order of the parade and all its celebrants. It's quite a list. A who's who of San Francisco. Then Supervisor and now Democratic mayor Gavin Newsom, members of two Democratic Clubs, California Democratic legislators, the police, sheriff and fire departments and even the director of the Golden Gate Bridge were marching right alongside celebrants from Vulva University, The Stud Bar, and Leather Pride.

It is, in short, the San Francisco political establishment whooping it up with its constituents.

What interests in all of this in light of the unfolding scandal involving Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley and his mind-boggling e-mails to a young House page are the participants in spots number 31 and 34 of the Pride Parade.

Celebrant number 31 was the late Harry Hay. Harry, it seems, was quite the guy. In fact, it is not too much to say that he was famous in San Francisco. He was famous not only as a founder of the gay rights movement, for his one-time relationship with actor Will Geer (who played Grandpa Walton on The Waltons TV series,) he was also known for being featured in the 1976 documentary film of gay life titled Word Is Out. When he died the following year after the parade, at 90, the New York Times Magazine featured him in "The Lives They Lived," its annual pictorial salute to famous Americans who had passed away during the preceding year. In addition to laudatory obits in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, the Chronicle did a considerably flattering obituary. "Harry Hay, gay rights pioneer, dies at 90." The paper favorably notes a number of things in Harry's life, including his left-leaning politics, his connection with the Communist Party in the 1930s and his founding of "The Mattachine Society," a group the Chronicle calls "the first sustained homosexual rights organization in the United States."

Fair enough. The Chronicle, however, left something else out of the obituary entirely. It was a very strong belief held by Harry Hay that, if one is to believe all the attention devoted to Harry on the Internet, was common knowledge in San Francisco.

Harry Hay was a fierce advocate of man/boy love. While The Chronicle simply ignored Harry's views, the North American Man/Boy Love Association was only too delighted to put up a collection of Harry's views on the need for young boys to have older men as sexual partners. Here's just a sample taken from a talk at a New York University forum sponsored by a campus gay group in 1983.

Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

In short, San Francisco's beloved Harry Hay was a vigorous and well-known advocate of older men having sex with young boys. He was a fearless and quite famous advocate for Congressman Mark Foley's behavior.

Which makes one curious about the presence of marcher number 34 in the 2001 Pride Parade. Marching a mere three spots away from the famous Harry Hay, no doubt waving and smiling to the crowd, was, as the Chronicle logged her in the Official Guide and Program Parade Lineup: "U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi."

That would be now Democratic leader of the U.S. Congress and the candidate of the Democratic Party to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, the official third in line to be President of the United States.

Surely this is a different Rep. Nancy Pelosi from the one who currently has on her website as Minority Leader the following statement:

"Republican leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's abhorrent behavior for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican Leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath."

Abhorrent behavior? If men having sex with children is "abhorrent behavior" then it seems it would be quite logical for a United States Congresswoman to stand up and protest the presence of one of its leading advocates having a place of honor in a civic parade -- a parade in which she herself would be marching mere steps behind him.

If Representative Pelosi took the time to condemn Harry Hay's presence in the Pride Parade, there is no evidence that I can find. Nor did she refuse to march in the parade as a protest of Mr. Hay. Nor did she issue a statement warning parents that they were bringing their kids to a parade where Mr. Hay was one of the featured attractions.

What Representative Pelosi chose to do instead -- as did much of civic San Francisco -- is blithely give a wink-and-a-nod to ole Harry and his interest in little boys.

Not only does a moment like this unintentionally reveal the mindset of what Representative Pelosi and her fellow Democrats may really think but can't -- yet -- support. (This is, after all, the city where now-Mayor Newsom took it upon himself to break new cultural ground by authorizing the performance of same-sex marriages -- in violation of California law.) It also raises the question of whether the acceptance of Harry Hay and his views is a snapshot of a larger, unspoken agenda that San Francisco Democrats want the national Democratic Party to eventually pursue when they return to a Congressional majority -- and the White House. After all, if Harry Hay's views were not only celebrated in a parade in San Francisco but were not even thought out-of-the-mainstream enough to draw the slightest protest from Ms. Pelosi, why should there be protests over a move to eventually change the laws about men having sex with boys in Pennsylvania or Missouri or Virginia?

There's two words for that kind of agenda.

"Abhorrent behavior."


Jeffrey Lord is the author of The Borking Rebellion. A Reagan White House political director, he is now a writer in Pennsylvania.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450

 

[fossten]

Nancy Pelosi: Anatomy of a Trainwreck
By Joseph Klein

FrontPageMagazine.com | October 9, 2006


The Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi told the Washington Post last month that this year’s midterm congressional campaign “shouldn't be about national security.” Thanks to an obliging mainstream press that continues to make the Foley cybersex page scandal the lead story day after day, she and her fellow leftists are escaping accountability for doing everything in their power to tilt our legal system in favor of terrorists’ rights while undermining our military and intelligence services.

One of Pelosi’s most shocking votes was against consideration of appropriations for intelligence and intelligence-related activities in fiscal year 2007 since there was no funding for something called a “Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.” Declaring that the NSA warrantless electronic surveillance program is illegal (which is an issue still on appeal before the courts), Pelosi also voted against a compromise that would have required judicial oversight but still provided the President with some additional flexibility during wartime. She even voted against the bill sponsored by our current Speaker Denny Hastert adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission! In Pelosi’s world – which will turn into nightmarish reality if she becomes the next Speaker of the House – the privacy rights of terrorist suspects and their friends under surveillance would trump our right to be protected against the execution of their murderous plans.

Pelosi believes that we should deal with the terrorists as a law enforcement matter – with all the trappings of rights for suspected terrorists that defendants in criminal trials are entitled to under our Constitution. Thus, she has called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo, declaring, “I think that we need a fresh start...a clean slate for America in the Muslim world.” No matter how she tries to explain it, the net effect of her “clean slate” approach would be to let the detainees go free, crouch into a defensive position and allow our country to become a sitting duck for a fresh attack on our soil.

Pelosi voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. She also vigorously opposed Congress’ establishment of procedures to govern custody and interrogation of detainees and the military tribunals to try them – although the procedures are entirely within the framework of the Supreme Court’s recent decision vesting Congress with such authority and are within the provision of the Constitution itself permitting Congress to suspend habeas corpus rights “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Al Qaeda’s attack against our nation’s capital and financial center, killing 3000 innocent people, should qualify as an invasion of our homeland under any common sense definition, but apparently that is not so for the most ardent protectors of terrorists’ civil liberties like Pelosi. It is no surprise, then, that Pelosi was given a 100 percent rating for supporting the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in 2005. While CAIR has undertaken some beneficial educational projects and has issued bromides against extremist acts of violence, there have been credible reports of CAIR's post-9/11 ties to terrorist groups, including funding of terrorist front groups. Moreover, a number of CAIR officials have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, offenses related to the support of Islamist terrorism. Pelosi’s full-fledged support of terrorist suspects’ civil liberties comports very nicely with CAIR’s needs at the moment.

In keeping with her radical civil liberties philosophy, Pelosi voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was aimed at stiffening federal laws to protect against terrorists’ entry to the country and their abuse of the state driver's license process to obtain false identification. She also led the Democratic opposition and voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States, including the building of a 700 mile long fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Her alternative has been to push acceptance of a dubious ID card issued by the Mexican consulates for aliens crossing over our border called the “matricula consular.” The problem with those cards is that they provide the perfect cover for terrorists and common criminals alike seeking to enter our country and to set up phony identities under which they can get drivers’ licenses, open bank accounts, apply for jobs and social services, etc. That is because Mexico is not authenticating the documents used to obtain the matricula cards against any computerized databases and therefore not verifying the applicant’s real identity, according to a background paper published by the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies.

Ignoring the lessons of how the 9/11 hijackers used various IDs to facilitate their operations, Nancy Pelosi proudly announced on January 3, 2003 her pet pilot program allowing individuals carrying the questionable matricula cards to access the Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse in San Francisco.

According to the testimony of an assistant director of the FBI's Office of Intelligence before a House immigration panel just six months later:

Federal officials have discovered individuals from many different countries in possession of the matricula consular card…At least one individual of Middle Eastern descent has also been arrested in possession of the matricula consular card. The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricula consular to create a well-documented, but fictitious, identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officers. It allows them to board planes without revealing their true identity. (Emphasis added.)

In spite of such evidence detailing how these cards are being abused and placing the security of the American people at risk, Pelosi has continued to promote them. She actually issued a press release on September 14, 2004 – right around the third anniversary of 9/11 – in which she bragged about how the Democrats under her leadership “defeated Republican attempts to restrict the Matrícula Consular identification card.”

While we are on the topic of Pelosi’s lending a helping hand to illegal aliens who may turn out to be terrorists, Pelosi is evidently confused on the proper role of law enforcement. In 2003, she accused immigration officers of conducting “terrorizing raids” on a Wal-Mart retail chain, which led to the arrest of over 300 illegal aliens. A spokesperson for Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, sought to educate the San Francisco lawmaker about what it means to enforce the law: “Our job as an enforcement agency is to enforce the law, whether that's immigration, homeland security or customs. That's what we're tasked to do.”

Pelosi has also supported outright amnesty for illegal workers, including granting citizenship status to 500,000 illegal workers in the agriculture industry. Indeed, Nancy Pelosi has a special affection for illegal aliens, no doubt thinking how liberalized entry for poor migrant workers could help in staffing the non-union vineyards that Pelosi and her multi-millionaire husband own in Napa Valley. Pelosi, the ardent advocate for labor causes, apparently has chosen not to hire members of the United Farm Workers to pick her vineyard grapes while at the same time she has chosen to sell those grapes to non-union wineries. She has an obvious conflict of interest every time that she votes on an immigration security bill because she and her husband personally benefit from the influx of cheap labor without whom “[N]ot one bottle of wine would get made here,” according to a farm worker advocate with Napa Valley Community Housing. [1] Is Pelosi looking out for her own financial interests, calculating how a law imposing strict penalties on employers of illegal aliens might affect her vineyard business instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?

If Pelosi wants the current House leadership to disclose under oath what they knew about the Foley e-mails, how about she disclose under oath the details about each of her vineyard workers to determine whether she and her husband are using undocumented aliens illegally, what kind of background checks were conducted and what they are being paid. By the way, in the posh neighborhood of Pelosi's multi-million dollar Napa County grape vineyards, illegal aliens are being permitted to use their Mexican matricula consular cards for identification purposes, helping to insulate their employers from charges of hiring “undocumented” workers and helping the aliens themselves to obtain local services at taxpayers’ expense. Did Pelosi abuse her public trust to help expand the use of these questionable cards for her private benefit?

Beyond giving free passes to terrorists and other aliens seeking to enter our country illegally and establish an identity here, Pelosi has consistently opposed a strong military. Her votes are too numerous to catalogue, but here is a sample. She voted NO on a measure to protect U.S. citizens, including our soldiers, from being arbitrarily arrested and brought before the unaccountable UN-sponsored International Criminal Court for a kangaroo trial. In recognition of that vote, and for others that included unconditional support for U.S. funding of the dysfunctional United Nations at the expense of our defense budget, she received a 2006 rating of A+ (with additional extra credit, no less) from the Citizens for Global Solutions, an ultra-left organization which advocates one-world government.

Pelosi voted NO on deploying a national missile defense system, even in the face of North Korean and Iranian development of long-range missile and nuclear capabilities. She voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses, even though this would upgrade the quality and breadth of our military forces.

Pelosi opposed both the first Gulf War to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 and the second war twelve years later to forcibly remove him from power altogether – even after Saddam Hussein’s continued defiance of a succession of UN Security Council resolutions on weapons of mass destruction and genocide against his own people. Despite her own warnings about Saddam Hussein’s dangerous WMD program while Clinton was President and her stated recognition that “the citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities”, she even voted NO on a bill affirming that the United States and the world have been made safer without Saddam Hussein’s regime in power and expressing gratitude for the valiant service of U.S. troops in liberating the Iraqi people.

The upcoming midterm election presents a choice between two very different visions of how to protect our country. It is no wonder that Pelosi wants desperately to change the subject of this campaign to anything but national security. Coming from someone who scoffs at traditional moral values by voting against the Defense of Marriage Act and the ban on partial birth abortions, Pelosi’s sudden protestations of moral outrage over Foley’s salacious e-mails would be laughable – until her political strategy becomes clear. With her self-righteous posturing, she wants to distract people from asking whether they are willing to take a chance on a leftist clique that places terrorist rights before the security of our families and believes that using our military to take the fight to the terrorists abroad is a bad thing. “I don't really consider ourselves at war,” Pelosi has said in describing her views on the struggle against global terrorism. With such a philosophy governing the House and creating more obstacles to defeating the Islamic-fascists, the risk of another catastrophic terrorist attack reaching us soon in our homes, at work, at school, while traveling or in our places of worship will increase exponentially – a debacle in the making that we simply cannot afford at this crucial time in our history.



ENDNOTES:



1. San Francisco Chronicle article by Glen Martin entitled “Grapes of Wrath” (December 19, 2004).