horowitz (2)

The Hedonist Left Doesn't Care If You Get AIDS

Just in case there was any lingering doubt that Planned Parenthood doesn’t give a hoot about “women’s health”—or anyone’s health, for that matter—the abortion giant is now on record favoring the “right” of HIV-positive people not to disclose their status to sex partners.

From their pamphlet, the ironically titled “Happy, Healthy, and Hot”: “Your decision about whether to disclose may change with different people and situations. You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.”

Surely the pamphlet only means friends and co-workers though, right? Actually, no. The pamphlet continues: “Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.” The pamphlet then encourages the reader to get involved to change such laws “that violate your rights.”

So basically Planned Parenthood is encouraging people to pull a Charlie Sheen; or at least condoning it. The renowned actor revealed in November that he had known for about four years that he is HIV positive, though he claimed that he always informed his sex partners of his status, with “no exceptions.” This came as something of a surprise to Bree Olson, Sheen’s former live-in girlfriend, who thankfully tested negative. She claims that they had sex almost daily for about a year using lambskin condoms, at his insistence, which are not effective protection against HIV.

“He doesn’t even value my life,” said Olson about Sheen’s revelation. No kidding, cupcake.

Her only purpose was to serve his pleasure. If she had to die so that he could get his rocks off, that was, in Sheen’s calculation, a price worth paying. The fact that Olson has been in almost three hundred pornographic films indicates that she may not care that much about her own health and safety though Olson left the business in 2010 and has advised other women not to get involved. Perhaps she was just naïve when she got started in porn and has since had an epiphany.

It’s hard to believe that such selfish people as Charlie Sheen really exist but they do and they’re actually a lot more common than you might imagine. The fact that Planned Parenthood, which masquerades as a reputable medical organization, endorses the “right” not to inform sex partners of HIV status tells us that the camel has already gotten its nose under the tent. Though the attitude may not yet be mainstream, that doesn’t mean it could never be.

The author and journalist Randy Shilts, who died of AIDS in 1994, shed light on the homosexual community’s culture of denial in his 1987 book “And the Band Played On”. Among Shilts’s premises is that homosexual political leaders talked a great game when it came to combatting AIDS but their action was lacking. They refused to consider any countermeasure to the AIDS “epidemic” that might hamper their sex lives. The most they would do is promote the use of condoms. They refused to speak out against the hookup culture that pervaded and continues to pervade the male homosexual community or, heaven forbid, to tell male homosexuals to keep their butt cheeks together. They were even squeamish about identifying male homosexuals as the primary “at risk” group, preferring instead to shotgun blast their preventative message, as impoverished as it was, to the public as a whole. The message might have had more impact if it had been aimed somewhere but that would have meant identifying a demographic group and addressing the specific high-risk behaviors that made that community unique—something they were entirely unwilling to do.

One can almost understand the rationale behind this kind of reckless denialism. The disease was discovered in 1981, just a few short years after male homosexuals had established sexually “liberated” enclaves in places like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. They had just escaped the moral condemnation of their conservative parents and they weren’t about to give up their newfound “freedom” for anything, even if the new objection to their sexual habits was medical rather than moral. Any finger-wagging prude caught preaching that jive was not welcome at their never-ending orgy.

In the mid-1980s, the author David Horowitz, who was then on a journey from the Marxist Left to conservative Right, sat down with Randy Shilts to discuss AIDS, the burgeoning menace then stalking San Francisco. What Shilts told him was shocking. As Horowitz wrote in his biography, “Radical Son”: “According to Shilts, it was the gay leaders themselves who suppressed the research findings, along with the fact—now generally accepted by medical officials—that AIDS was a sexually transmitted disease. This was difficult to believe, but when I checked Shilts’s story, it turned out to be true. The Stonewall Gay Democratic Club, one of the political powers in the community, had summarized the politically correct view prevailing among activists in a slogan: ‘Sex doesn’t cause AIDS—a virus does.’ The activists were afraid that identifying the disease with promiscuous sex and also with gay sex—95 percent of the cases in San Francisco were among homosexual males—would stigmatize the ‘gay life-style’ and create a political backlash.”

Yeah, and we wouldn’t want to stigmatize the “gay” lifestyle, would we? I don’t know what’s wrong with stigmatizing a filthy sexual practice rife with adverse health consequences, including AIDS of course, but also gonorrhea, anal cancer, and intestinal parasites. We stigmatize smoking, why wouldn’t we stigmatize anal sex? Put me down as pro-stigma.

Unfortunately, male homosexuals whine that their rights are being violated whenever anyone looks askance at butt sex, the activity that apparently defines them. They demand not only the right to engage in dangerous, unhealthy sexual behavior, but the right to positive affirmation as well.

Sadly, the medical community seems to be fulfilling their wish. Doctors these days live in fear that their careers will be summarily ended if they advise against anal sodomy—which is pretty good medical advice, no matter how you slice it. To cite just one example, consider Dr. Paul Church, a well-respected urologist who was recently fired from his position at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston for opposing the homosexual lifestyle on moral and medical grounds. His story began in 2009 when BIDMC sent out an email inviting staff members to ride on the hospital-sponsored float in an upcoming “pride” parade. Dr. Church responded with a mass email of his own, asking why a hospital would endorse a behavior with undeniable health consequences that include death. “If a medical scientist cannot raise research that the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control clearly shows homosexual conduct as harmful,” he concluded, “then that means that your health, my health, medical science — all of that is being called into question simply because of a political agenda.”

He was right, of course, though it’s dangerous to be right when your employer is wrong. The torrent of homosexual outrage came down on Dr. Church hard. After a lengthy fight with BIDMC, he lost his job. He may lose his positions at other Boston-area medical centers, including Harvard Medical School, where he also practices medicine.

Church was essentially fired for being a good doctor, for staying true to the Hippocratic Oath he took to “do no harm” at a time when all the other doctors around him had abandoned theirs. “Truly caring for the well-being of individuals requires telling them the truth about their choices,” said Church. “The hospital does this on less controversial issues such as smoking and diet.” Yes, that’s true, but smokers and fat people don’t have well-financed and well-organized political apparatuses and they don’t crush people who get in their way. That’s the difference.

The homofascists had to make an example out of somebody and they chose Dr. Church. The chilling effect will be felt far and wide—no one will dare point out that homosexuals are perverting medicine’s core mission, though they plainly are.

We’re living in an era of hedonism, in which a substantial portion of the population careens from disco to disco and from orgasm to orgasm. Not all such hedonists are homosexuals, of course—there is always the occasional Charlie Sheen—but a significant number of them are. There is nothing they won’t do just to keep the good times rolling. They don’t care about other people’s health or safety, nor do they care about facts or truth. They care only about their own pleasure and they will stop at nothing to secure it.

Read more…

Is Ron Paul Antisemitic?

Ron Paul has always been a peculiar political creature. He is like a two-headed dragon with one side sporting the features of a constitutional purist, and social conservative. The other side is the face of a leftist, embracing the leftist foreign policy of appeasement, and the devil-may-care attitude of many important social issues such as the legalization of pot, and the "War on Drugs." But a two-headed anything is also two-faced and it is dangerous to trust a two-faced political creature of any party.

Ron claims to be a Republican but his approaches are more Libertarian. He rides on the coattails of the GOP because he otherwise would never have even a ghost of a chance of winning the presidential nomination. There is what I call a "ornery cabal" of disgruntled activists who adore Ron Paul, and who through no measure of reasoning, will closely scrutinize their two-headed dragon. Their strategy is instead to pick apart every little imperfection they see in every other conservative candidate from Herman to Mitt to Michelle. They challenge the good conservatives now in Congress who are up against a bulwark of decades-old big government policies and practices that cannot be hammered away overnight. And yet they cite Constitutional precepts when their goals are not met within a few months after an election. They think that in 2011 we can govern like it was 1787.

This ornery cabal would not be a problem if they were not so dangerous. The danger lies in their knee-jerk tendency to run Independent candidates against any Republican who does not live up to their expectations of Constitutional purity and the superhuman ability to remake a dysfunctional Congress into a well-oiled machine working within an ideally balanced triumvirate government, overnight. Despite the fact that it will take a majority of conservatives in both houses of congress, and a strong conservative president many months, if not years, to redirect the course of America's economy, national defense, and social issues, some Ron Paul supporters rail against the very steps that are being taken by our majority in one house of the congress, which is but one branch of three, as if the current Republicans in government we the scourge of the planet. Their vitriol is so unreasonable that they will embrace Independents who are much more liberal and big-government oriented than the Republicans with whom they are so dissatisfied.

Now to the question of Ron Paul's Antisemitism: He has been accused by at least two iconic Jewish Conservatives of cold indifference for the well-being and fate of Israel, if not outright contempt for the Jewish people.  In one of the following video clips David Horowitz describes Israel as "a tiny Democracy surrounded by Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East." He asks Ron Paul rhetorically, "isn't that in itself worth defending?" Yet Ron Paul adheres stubbornly to his isolationist policies. Policies which, by the way, are disastrous not just for Israel, but for all of our foreign allies and, ultimately, for the security of the United States.

David Horowitz: Ron Paul's Antisemitism

Ben Stein on Ron Paul's Antisemitism

Ron Paul supporters, I ask but two thing of you. First, examine your adored leader with the same eye of scrutiny with which you study every other GOP candidate. Second, remember that if Ron Paul runs a third party campaign it will guarantee another 4 years of Barak Obama, Obamacare, overstretched and undefined military actions, social decline, economic catastrophe, and the death knell to our precious Constitution. If you run Ron Paul you will get exactly the opposite of what you think he stands for.



Read more…