Friday, September 29, 2006

Congressman Turned Sex Predator!

The good news today is that 2 more 'sexual indoctrination' bills have been vetoed in California. Gov. Schwarzenegger turns back the effort of looney left Democratic Legislators who passed terrible bills designed to make school kids 'sexualized activists.'

In the WND link above, CRI's Meredith Turney stated:

"Schools should be centers of learning – learning the fundamentals of education such as reading, writing and arithmetic," Turney said. "Instead, the legislature has focused on advancing a radical social agenda in public schools. Hopefully, next session the legislature will make educating – not indoctrinating – students a priority."

I agree wholeheartedly! Enough is enough with the homosexual indoctrination bills!! But do you think that this triple defeat will stop the homosexual activists (there are at least 6!) in the California Legislature? Probably not. They will be back again next year; trying to force an agenda that the public clearly does not want! Gotta keep fightin!...

The bad news today is to find out that U.S. Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, who was co-chairman of the House Missing and Exploited Children Caucus, and was involved with a sexual predator preventative bill (I think), has now been found to be a sexual predator himself!

Found a link to another article that contains a PDF link to the actual instant messenger conversation. Anyone know if this might lead to criminal charges against the former congressman? This is really sick...and awful, folks...

I always liked Congressman Foley. He appeared on Fox News several times, fighting for bills that protect children. Now, he has done a very stupid thing by soliciting sex with a 16-yr.-old teen boy who was a former page for another congressman! What a let down for all the people who trusted this man to represent them! What a let down for Congress and the Republican party! What a let down for all decent people everywhere!


Michele Malkin: The Foley Mess
Trackback URL:

Foley Resigns

La Shawn Barber: Congressman Mark 'Page-boy' Foley Resigns
Trackback URL:


Updates 10/2/06

Ex-Rep. Foley Checks Into Alcohol Rehab

Who Protected the Pervert Foley?

Foleygate: The Democrats' October Surprise?
Trackback URI for this post:


GMpilot said...

Will Foley let himself be interviewed by Sean Hannity now? Just curious...

Christinewjc said...

Foley will most likely be in hiding for quite a while. If Sean did eventually get an interview, I'm sure that he would treat him respectfully, but would ask the difficult questions, too.

Christinewjc said...

In Who Protected the Pervert Congressman?, Cliff Kincaid said:

"The failure to use the word "homosexual" in describing Foley's dirty talk is likely due to fear over being labeled "homophobic" or biased by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which exists to make sure that only positive portrayals of homosexuality are permitted in the media. Plus, the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association previously warned the media, in connection with sexual abuse by Catholic Priests, to avoid linking homosexuality to pedophilia.

The questionable line we already see emerging in the media is that Foley is guilty of inappropriate behavior toward young people but that it has nothing to do with his "sexual orientation."

In fact, the entire scandal might have been avoided if Foley's homosexuality had been exposed and confronted, rather than protected, over the last several years. Top Republicans and the media were part of this cover-up.

Peter LaBarbera, who began his writing career at Accuracy in Media, raised questions about Foley's secret life back in 2003, after alternative newspapers and columnists began running stories about Foley's homosexuality, even reporting that he had a "boyfriend." LaBarbera gave credit to Bob Norman of the Broward-Palm Beach New Times newspaper for exposing Foley. However, LaBarbera found that most non-homosexual newspapers did not pursue the matter and that homosexual Republican groups were protecting him. For example, LaBarbera quoted Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual activist group, as saying, "I could care less about [Foley's] sexual orientation." Guerriero insisted that the congressman had no obligation to discuss it."

I was wondering the same thing. Why does the media omit the fact that Foley is a homosexual? It appears that he is more of a pederast, rather than a pedophile, since he doesn't go after pre-pubescent boys.

In the past, I have come under fire for labeling people like him as homosexual pederasts (or pedophiles, as was the case with some involved in the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal.)

Several people (usually always pro-homosexual agenda advocates) have felt the need to "correct" me and say that men who molest young boys are usually heterosexuals. But how could this be if they are attracted to having sex with a same-sex child?

From the article, it is obvious that Guerriero, of the Log Cabin Republicans, didn't want to "discuss Foley's sexual orientation." Did he know that he was a homosexual predator of teen boys? Did he not want Foley known as a homosexual man in case his perversion came out one day?

Like Mr. Kincaid, I'd like to know which people (and how many!) have been attempting to cover up Foley's perverse preference for teen boys all these years that he's been in congress!!

John Walsh, who stood near Foley when the Adam Walsh bill was signed by President Bush must be so upset and disgusted.

Christinewjc said...

Foley Setup?


"Although not confirmed, it’s being thrown around that ABC’s primary source for the computer chats and emails is the liberal watch dog group CREW.

Significant, because while there is a story about how the GOP leadership knew of Foley’s actions for at least a year, after which he was ordered to stop contact with the teen, there reports that CREW also knew of the allegations months ago. In fact according to reports, CREW had contacted the FBI, and were waiting to go public when ABC posted the story. So the obvious question is “Why wait”? I think it’s obvious they were waiting to have the greatest effect.

It is interesting that CREW now is calling for an independent counsel to look into - not Foley - but the GOP leadership. This less than fourty-eight hours after his resignation. Pretty darn quick I would say, since the facts are still coming out. It’s almost like they had it all ….like, planned."

GMpilot said...

Why shouldn’t some of the GOP House leadership be looked at, Christine?...

”Foley's Republican colleagues, who are champions when it comes to shooting the wounded, immediately began trashing him. "This type of behavior is what I try to protect my grandchildren from," snarled Clay Shaw, the GOP representative from a neighboring Florida House district. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, issued a statement condemning Foley's behavior as "an obscene breach of trust."

"His immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system," Hastert, Boehner and Blunt said of Foley.

Fair enough. But what do these Republican leaders think about those who knew about Foley's undue interest in male pages, covered the fact up for months—perhaps years—and then lied about what they knew. Should they, too, face "the full weight of the criminal justice system"?

When the news of Foley's emails broke in the media, Hastert declared, "I was surprised."

Really? That's strange.

Congressman Tom Reynolds, who chairs the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, revealed on Saturday that he had informed Hastert months ago about concerns regarding Foley's habit of sending sexually suggestive—"strip down and get naked"—e-mails and instant messages to male congressional pages.

Congressman Rodney Alexander, the Louisiana Republican who brought those concerns to the attention of party leaders after learning about Foley's e-mails from the family of a former page in 2005, has confirmed that his office contacted Hastert's office regarding the matter. Additionally, Alexander personally discussed the issue with Reynolds and Boehner.

Another Republican with close ties to the House leadership, Illinois Representative John Shimkus, admits that he investigated the e-mail issue in 2005—apparently after it was reviewed by Hastert's office and the office of the Clerk of the House—and says he warned Foley to break off contact with a particular teenager and, in a more general sense, to stop stalking male pages. Then, Shimkus dropped the matter—to the apparent satisfaction of Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Reynolds and other House Republican leaders.

Some readers may be surprised that these top Republicans, who go on and on about the need to fend off supposed "threats" posed by loving and responsible gay and lesbian couples, would be so accepting of Foley. The truth is that the hands-off approach to this whole scandal is entirely in character for the current crop of Republican leaders, who couldn't care less about the sexuality of members of their caucus.

They only employ "moral values" appeals to scare up votes at election time; it's never been something they believed in.”

Full article at

If there’s any evidence of a setup (by CREW or anyone else), I’ve yet to see it. As for the rest…well, it’s a little harder to campaign on ‘moral values’ when you’ve got so little of your own.