TAKE A CHILL PILL, GONZALES... THERE IS NO NUDITY ON THIS PAGE
www.Barebackjack.com ~ The Internet's Hottest Load Exchange
Here's where Jack speaks his mind.
Welcome to Jack's Outburst. I guess some of you would call it a 'blog'. 'Blog' reminds me of the sound one makes while puking his guts out. I frankly detest the word. So this isn't a blog. It's Outburst... thoughts that evolve in my mind until they just have to come out. It's my opinion column (some might call a rant) about politics and religion and other persistent examples of human stupidity. And it's my soapbox to call others to action. I will add to it as I see fit, not per any schedule. So check back every now and again to see what I've added.

TOPICS: Gonzales Is At It Again | Brokeback Mountain | New Porn Regulations

04/24/06: Gonzales the Mexi-Nazi is At It Again...

C|net has just reported that my favorite modern-day brown-shirt, Alberto (Adolf) Gonzales has released a new mandate calling for yet more irresponsible parenting by means of special government-approved labeling which he wants placed prominently on all web-pages with any adult-oriented content. In case youíre wondering what Gonzales considers Ďadult contentí, hereís the list:

sexual intercourse of all types; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

And, of course, Gonzales is calling this scam another tactic to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. Any half-wit can see through this ploy. Itís not at all about child porno. Itís pure, unadulterated censorship (again). The Mexi-Nazi (as I like to call him) must have something psychologically wrong with him to want so badly to make it illegal for legal adults to see each other in the altogether. If God didnít want us to see each other naked, weíd come out of the womb fully clothed, wouldnít you think?

Letís rewind about 69 years, to 1937, when Hitler censored the German public. His Nazis burned books that were thought to be impure to the Nazi way of thinking. Books by respected thinkers such as Einstein and Freud, and such renowned writers as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway and Sinclair Lewis were banned. Even Helen Kellerís autobiography was torched. The Nazis also censored art they felt was degenerate (they didnít have cable television or the internet pic-of-the-day to censor), and they confiscated works of great artists as Paul Klee, Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Edward Munch, and several other of their contemporaries. The Nazi Party took control of the press and forbade any opinions be published that were in opposition to the Party way of thinking. Weíre used to thinking of propaganda as being the rhetoric that gets shoved repeatedly down peopleís throats. But censoring the ideas, words, and images that go against the needs and desires of the ruling party make it easier to force that rhetoric upon the people. Censorship is therefore back-door propaganda.

Rule Number 1: When you control what the people are exposed to, you control the people.

Well, gentlemen, weíre seeing these same things happening in the here and now. Bush is notorious for populating his public appearances with only Kool-Aid drunk, pro-Bush zombies so that news stories always show smiling supporters applauding his speeches and programs. And Gonzales is now attempting to censor the internet, to control what you see and how easily you access it. According to the c|net article, Gonzales is also asking ISPís to act as spies for the government by keeping extensive records of everything their clients do, in order to facilitate future criminal prosecutions. And failure to comply with these new censorship laws will result in imprisonment.

Heavy-handed? You betcha. And to think all this ado is over something so natural as nudity.

I told you, the guy is a fuck. We have less than three years to go before he and Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice and Cheney must vacate the highest offices of our land and turn the reins over to (hopefully) a president and cabinet whose priorities lie in enforcing the rights of American citizens and protecting the integrity of the Constitution, which sets forth those rights. Amen. But with Bushís regime now beginning to go down in flames, you can probably expect he and that pint-sized moron Gonzales will do as much collateral damage as humanly possible before they get the heave-ho.

This is why I ask each and every one of you to join in fighting Gonzales and his bullcrap anti-porn laws. His job is supposed to be to administer the laws of this country fairly and to uphold the Constitution. He has instead confused his position with that of Morality King, or perhaps even God. And rather than focus his efforts on prosecuting the really bad guys, he is subtly attempting to vilify people who produce erotic entertainment by making what they do indirectly illegal. He also seems to be under the mistaken idea that all pornography is child pornography. I told you heís a moron, didnít I?

Iíll wager that what underlies all this is Gonzales' own private fear of the porn addict that perhaps lurks within him, and thatís why he is making this issue a top priority. This theory makes sense from a psychological point of view. In the same way that some closet cases react to openly gay people with extreme hostility, the way Gonzales labels every move of his towards censorship as a war on kiddie porn makes me question if he isnít a pederast (or closet pederast) himself. It is said that the torture he apparently didnít disapprove of at Abu Ghraib was homoerotic in nature. What does that tell ya? Was Alberto Gonzales molested as a child and this crackdown on porn is his way of attempting closure ~ or worse: revenge? Who knows? Maybe itís a little of each. Regardless of the answer, it doesnít change the fact that he is a sneaky, smiling, sicko bastard who probably has FAR better things to do with his time than go after the big bad adult entertainment industry ~ an industry which pays his salary, incidentally. And yet he spends a significant amount of his professional time plotting ways to castrate the skin business while things of far greater national importance are going on in the world.

In case youíre wondering, Iím not opposed to labeling my website. Iíve been doing it for years. Not on every page, mind you. But Iíve always voluntarily placed warning labels and some form of child-proofing on the opening pages of my site, both visibly and in the META tags hidden in the code for each page. I even pushed for a top-level domain a number of years ago that could be blocked by parental software or even by web browsers themselves. So a label doesnít trouble me (unless it is aesthetically displeasing). What disturbs me is how easily Gonzales keeps overstepping his authority; that he has targeted the skin business for his morality crusade; and that he absolutely does not seem to care what Constitutional rights he has to chill or squelch in order to make his holy crusade a reality. Most troubling is that his zeal to rid the world of American porn has the potential of eroding constitutional guarantees that will affect every single citizen of this country.

So while labeling is no skin off my nose, I have definite problems with what this move could potentially lead to down the road. I object to censorship and the silencing of free speech, because nothing good has ever historically come of such a motion. I am concerned that records that ISPís will be required to maintain for the government can and will be used by the DOJ to charge and prosecute individuals for ALL SORTS of things, not just this transparent anti-porn crusade. And I wholeheartedly object to the idea that it is somehow MY responsibility to parent someone elseís children because todayís parents are too greedy and selfish to keep one adult at home to watch their own damned offspring. The naked body and what people can do with it is hardly poison under the kitchen sink. I resent the double standard that says if mother doesnít put a child-proof lock on the kitchen cabinet or dad doesnít keep the gun case locked, bad parent. Yet if either lets their child surf the net unsupervised itís a case of bad webmaster if the kid sees a naked person. Fuck that!

Instead, how about jailing the parents who allow their children to surf the net without supervision. Isnít that akin to child endangerment? If a parent left a gun out where their kids could play with it unsupervised, CPS would be there in a heartbeat, hauling the parents off to jail. So if the presence of nudie pix on the internet is really that harmful to the well-being of our nationís children it must be concluded that the irresponsible parent endangers his child by allowing him or her to go unchaperoned into that dangerous world of ideas and images we call the Internet. Put the lousy parents in jail, not the webmasters for godís sake. More good would come of that once parents realized they had better start raising their own kids responsibly again if they want to keep a clean record.

Anyway, in order to keep in the spirit of things, I created some banners to be used on my site, just to keep things all legal and such. Hereís what I propose (you have my permission to use them on your sites too):

Alberto Gonzales wants you to know that there is nudity on this page and he wants you to be ashamed of yourself for looking at it

Rrrrights? You are in OUR America now. You do not have rrrrights!

You know, if the top level Neocons donít like being compared to Nazis, they should stop imitating them.

The more snake-filled purses that fall out of Gonzalesí lisping mouth, the more I distrust him, his policies, and his motives. And I dare say you should too. CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN and tell them you oppose internet censorship, you oppose government spying through ISPís, and you oppose '2257'. Iím not asking you to do this for me. Lord knows, I have a big enough mouth as it is, and I use it. I am asking you to do this for YOU and for your fellow countrymen. I am asking you to do this to protect YOUR rights. Just as parents need to be more responsible for what they allow their children to view on the internet, we each have to be more proactive and watchful of our rights. This war on porn is only the tip of the iceberg, and adult content on the internet is the giant ship about to hit it. Thereís much more lurking below the surface that can and will bring damage of untold proportions to our nation if it doesnít sink us altogether. So for peteís sake get off your lazy butts and write or call your federal politicians and complain about Alberto Gonzales and his ongoing abuse of position and power... while you still legally can.

~ Jack

For the complete c|net article referred to above, please go to:
http://news.com.com/Gonzales+calls+for+mandatory+Web+labeling+law/2100-1028_3-6063554.html?tag=nefd.pulse

To contact your Congressmen, please follow this link to www.congress.org.


03/27/06: Brokeback Mountain Has No Clothes!

Brokeback Mountain - HATED IT! Photo courtesy of Universal StudiosI am rather disturbed by the way Brokeback Mountain has been receiving all sorts of accolades these last few months. I hear people talk about it as a groundbreaking love story, with reverence and awe filling their voices and mist clouding their eyes. Has an alternate version been released? Because quite frankly I think I must have seen a different movie.

The film I watched could hardly be described as a "love story". It wasnít a "gay cowboy flick" or anything remotely akin to one. Brokeback Mountain was a bad piece of trash with beautiful scenery as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps it is our societyís surreal willingness to swallow everything we are told that has people believing all sorts of misconceptions about this movie (and, for that matter, the remainder of world affairs). Perhaps weíve gotten to the sorry point in our social evolution where we rather like someone doing our thinking for us and we thus ignore what our eyes tell us and favor what our ears are told. Whatever the reason, the reviews I have seen about this film from both "professional" film reviewers and the public alike tell me that someoneís not paying attention. And inattentiveness is historically one of the surest means available to us of eroding society and freedom.

OK, enough with the preamble. What is it that I didnít like about Brokeback Mountain? For starters, Iíd like to point out that BBM is NOT a gay movie NOR a movie about gay cowboys. It is a movie about two men who could at best be described as sexually confused, or possibly even bisexual. But gay? CímonÖ not hardly. That these men get married to women and each beget families without too much protest indicates that they are at least SOMEWHAT comfortable in heterosexual roles. Yes, they do stray from time to time from these heterosexual roles to dip their wicks in each other. But neither gent is too terribly put off by the act of boffing broads or making babies. So letís stop pretending that Jack and Ennis are queer boys and accept the reality that they are not.

The next trouble I have with the film is perhaps the most infuriating to me. That this film should be described as a love story is an insult to all of the great love stories and romantic tragedies that have come before. First of all, if it is a love story then itís one in which not one character ever as much as utters those three infamous little words: "I love you". Some might argue that a love story neednít include the words "I love you" in order to fit within that category. I could agree with that. But by the same token, you canít call a movie without any singing and dancing a musical, can you? Brokeback Mountain leaves me asking "Whereís the love???"

NoÖ Brokeback Mountain is not a love story, tragic or otherwise. Itís no 'Romeo and Julioí tale. Instead itís a story about two losers so utterly consumed with self-loathing and dysfunction that they never find happiness, and who in turn fuck up each otherís lives and the lives of everyone they get close to over a span of twenty years. Itís blatantly obvious that the characters of Jack and Ennis hate themselves for what they think they feel, and so if these guys donít love themselves, the question remains how they can really love anyone else. They donít, and this is not a love story. Period.

Again, I have to wonder how people can watch the men in this movie engage sexually and think of them as anything but dysfunctional. Their sex (in fact, their entire relationship) is rooted in violence and deceit, not in love (another sure sign of self-loathing). This ain't romance here, fellas. If you think it is, I'm glad we're not dating. I cannot suspend my disbelief to the necessary degree that could allow me to swallow the notion that their drunken thirty-second spit-fuck rape could have led to a lifetime of furtive sexual passion and all-consuming lust. Nor can I find it believable that the character of Ennis can so easily side-step his deeply-rooted self-hatred and homophobia enough to allow him to violently mack on Jack in plain view of his wife. That doesnít make sense. Not when the Del Mars live in a 2 horse town thatís all of maybe three blocks long, and a short drive into the country would afford these two horny cowpokes all the privacy they could ever hope for. People Ė even hick people Ė donít really act this stupidly.

There are more subtle things wrong with this picture. Thereís the fact that Heath Ledgerís character is a loser who can barely open his mouth wide enough to speak intelligibly (let alone get a cock in there), and heís just a mess, inside and outÖ so what could possibly have all the women in the movie going "Yep, heís the man Iíve waited my whole life for"? Then thereís the business about Ennisí wife putting a note on his fishing pole. Please explain how he got that pole in and out of the truck without noticing it?

One of the popular myths surrounding this film is that it is some sort of groundbreaking movie. Well, if you consider that a movie about self-loathing dysfunctional cowboys who are incapable of saying the words "I love you," screw up a handful of lives, and bring children into loveless marriages is a Ďlove storyí, then I guess from that perspective it is unique. But groundbreaking? Quite frankly it seems that America has a bit of a memory problem, for it was back in the early 80ís that an actual groundbreaking gay love story came out: "Making Love." There was also "Cruising" which coupled violence and murder with gay sex, so BBM breaks no ground there. In fact, a little Otto Preminger picture called "Advise and Consent" which was released way back in 1962 touched on closeted gay sex and scandal, and ~ of course ~ the good guy in that relationship dies, by his own hand no less. Other gay movies have come before BBM, and at least one of them could actually be called a love story. The truth is that Brokeback has broken no new ground, nor explored much in the way of new territory, regardless of what its promoters want you to believe.

And that covers the storyline aspects of the picture. Socio-politically, I think Brokeback Mountain is an even worse travesty. While our community has been striving for equality in such areas as marriage, health benefits, etc., Ang Lee makes a picture destined to set our efforts back 500 years ~ to veer us off course and poison the greater heterosexual population against our community and its needs again. This film no more furthers our cause or advances our public image than if he had done a documentary on the joy of being a gay Neo-Nazi, or the crystal meth epidemic. It paints us as messed up people whose only potential is to wreck the lives of the people around us. There are no GOOD gay role models in this film. Only bad ones.

Some might argue that it is not the role of film (or, more loosely, art) to further any sort of agenda. But that assessment is wrong. Art, especially media art such as film, has always played a significant role in societal awareness and the growth of important ideas. People identify with the movies they see. And BBM serves the gay community poorly. Historically, motion pictures have given us a rather limited choice of images. Weíve been painted as tragic figures, and/or wicked, evil creatures (as in "No Way Out" or "Midnight in the Garden of Good And Evil") who usually get killed off by the end of the film, or as simpering, effeminate drag queens, as in "The Birdcage," or as buffoons, as in TV's "Will and Grace." Homosexuals rarely ever get the chance to live normal happy lives in film. There are certainly enough movies out there in which our kind exits the picture in a pine box Ė be it tragically, heroically, from AIDS, etc. No need to make any more of that tripe. Weíve seen enough. And if Ang Lee is himself gay as rumours suggest, I say shame on him for betraying his own community so! "Brokeback Mountain" had the opportunity to REALLY be a breakthrough film by presenting the central characters as strong, courageous men who were willing and able to endure the slings and arrows of society and stand their ground for their love. Instead, Lee gave us just more of the same old Hollywood "tragic, weak gay character" schlock.

Would there have been anything wrong in filming a story about two cowboys who find love for each other in the mountains and then do whatever they had to do to make it work? Hardly. Who knowsÖ it might have even implanted the germ of an idea in the minds of its straight audience that allowing gay people to share in the equality of marriage is a good idea. But with the level of dysfunction, self-loathing, and violence portrayed in BBM I wouldnít blame the heteros if they decided to escalate their denial of this equal right to us. Look how these two pseudo-fags messed up what could have been perfectly good families. Thereís no positive role modeling hereÖ only a greater example of why we should be denied the things we strive for. So, with all due respect, I say "FUCK ANG LEE AND THIS AWFUL PICTURE!" Perhaps he has told us more about himself through this film than any of us cares to know.

Of course, some of the blame must go to Annie Proulx who wrote this story. Thereís an old adage in both film and literature: ĎWrite what you know if you want it to be believableíÖ words Ms Proulx ought to take to heart. I seriously doubt she, as a woman, knows what it would be like to be a cowboy exploring an alternate sexuality in the early 1960ís any more than you or I would know what it would be like to be a straight female. The perspectives are so disparate. And yet she wrote this twaddle without any concrete knowledge of her subject as far as I can tell.

On the positive side, I can say that the cinematography in this motion picture is breathtaking. The Canadian Rockies make an awesome backdrop for all this mess. But thatís as far as I am willing to praise this piece of garbage.

Perhaps it is our current social and political climate ~ our culture of lies ~ that has people wanting so desperately to believe everything that the filmís marketers say about it, that they will overlook what is actually playing out before them. But not me. Iím not so easily seduced. Iím the kind of person who will unhesitatingly say "The Emperor has no clothes" when indeed he doesnít. And in all honesty, "Brokeback Mountain" couldnít be more naked. I feel that everything youíve been told to believe about "BBM" is pure horse manure! Face itÖ if they told you what I told you ~ that it was a movie about Ďtwo losers so utterly consumed with self-loathing and dysfunction that they never find happiness, and who in turn fuck up each otherís lives and the lives of everyone they get close to over a span of twenty yearsí ~ would you have seen it? Of course notÖ well, most of you anyway. So they mislabeled it as a love story, mislabeled it as a gay cowboy picture, and mislabeled it as a ground-breaking motion picture ~ and they successfully packed the theaters with popcorn-gorging, teary-eyed people willing and eager to believe that this is indeed what the picture is about.

I have heard some say that they think Brokeback Mountain will change how mainstream America views us. Thatís a scary thought considering I see no positive image of homosexuality or of gay relationships presented in this movie. But if there is some social value to be had in "BBM", I suppose it might be that it has the potential to light a fire underneath those in the closet to come out and be true to themselves. The message in the movie is obvious: come out, or fuck up lots of lives including your own. But then, the message could also be: come out, and get a tire iron to the head and be dragged behind a truck by your genitals. Yup. That message would sure get me to come out of the closet in a hurry.

If it were up to me, Iíd say we, the members of the Gay Community, should reject this picture. There are far better images of homosexual life out there, and even better ones to come. Our community doesnít need Ang Leeís traitorous portrait of dysfunctional lust and violent sex, nor should we adoringly accept the black eye it gives each and every one of us simply because it contains a little guy on guy stuff. And I would make the suggestion to Mr. Lee that if he wants to tell a tale of dysfunctional homosexual behavior he should simply do a documentary on his own life. I'm sure it would be far more believable.

~ Jack



Okay. I started this non-blog because I am mad as fucking hell over a whole new set of regulations US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has tried to put into effect which govern the adult entertainment industry. This thing is nothing but bad news and I think it would behoove everyone who reads this column to write his congressmen and tell them that the new 2257 regulations are fundamentally wrong and set a very dangerous precedent for this country's future.

You think I'm being dramatic? Overly grim? I'm not.

Let me ask you this: do you like looking at porn on the internet? Do you enjoy watching XXX-rated videos? Howabout getting daily deliveries of "porn pics of the day" in your email box? Do you spend time cruising the personals ads (like those on barebackjack.com and others)? Are these things that bring enjoyment to your personal and private life? Alberto Gonzales wants to take that away from you.

Disguising his new crusade in the war on porn as an attempt to bring child pornography to an end, Gonzales has stepped up the regulations on model identification in such a way that it will adversely affect every legitimate producer and distributor of adult-oriented content in the world. It is predicted that the toll will be great on the internet as this regulation starts sucking the life out of its first victims. Violation of the new 2257 rules will result in both a substantial fine and up to 5 years in prison. There's a lot of dirty pool built into this regulation change. And as I said, it sets very bad precedents which we honestly cannot afford to let get set.

Maybe I should let you know what I'm talking about in regards to 2257. Its more official name is 18 U.S.C. ß2257 (long version: Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Statute 2257) and it is the name given to a regulation that has governed the adult entertainment industry since the mid-90's. Basically 2257 requires all producers of adult oriented content must maintain records of the legal names, SSN's, addresses, aliases (stage name histories), contact info, and (most importantly) photo ID's and dates of birth of all performers and for every single photo or video shoot, or anything else that results in X-rated adult entertainment. Up to now, it's been relatively easy to comply with. But this re-written version will require the original producers of adult content to distribute that sensitive information on each and every performer to anyone down the line who would want to distribute the content. For some studios, that's thousands of resellers for each production!

Royalty-free content won't be exempt from this law, so even those who re-distribute royalty-free content will have to keep all these records on file. That means that the guy who puts together that "Porn Pic of the Day" mailing that you get can be thrown in jail if the information that the original producer of the content supplied him with is inicorrect. He could be thrown in jail for never receiving any information too. And it is entirely possible that this law could be extended to include fines and incarceration for any webmaster who mails pornography to you without acquiring YOUR proof of age to keep on file, even if you sign up to receive it. The burden on the webmaster, producer or distributor of adult entertainment ~ including R-rated movies ~ has become tremendous under these proposed changes to the law. The 'new 2257' even extends to cover what YOU post on the internet: websites offering adult personals will be required to collect and keep copies of acceptable ID information ~ your personal and private information such as your name, address, date of birth, etc. ~ on file before posting your nude photos, even though you aren't a "professional" or paid model. This will become a huge liability and an absolute record-keeping nightmare for webmasters, especially those with very popular hook-up sites. It is predicted that many will end up disallowing the posting of nude photos for the simple reason of eliminating the headache!

This revised law states that proper and acceptable ID is that which is issued by the state, and the state has to be one of the 50 United States. A Canadian, European, Mexican, or Puerto Rican driver's license or passport won't be legal. And College ID's which have previously been acceptable not only won't be legal anymore, but producers who accepted them since the 2257 laws went into effect may find their older content undistributable. They might even be fined or go to jail for having accepted student photo ID's in the past!

The 'New 2257' violates the First Amendment in several ways: it presupposes that producers of porn are violating the law, thereby requiring all persons involved in the "business" to be on parole just for being in the "business", and it requires them to keep the proof of their innocence on file. Without going into too much more detail, I will say that according to the info provided by the Free Speech Coalition (watchdog organization for the protection of First Amendment rights), the new regs violate other constitutional amendments. You can read more at their website. The new 2257 states the records that are required to be kept on file may be used as evidence against the producer / distributor thereby violating the Fifth Amendment. It allows for the search of records and private property without a search warrant, and that directly violates the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. And the law not only will open up the door to numerous attempts at identity theft (which the DOJ is supposed to be protecting you from), but it will also put performers in the adult industry at risk for stalking, violence, and other unwelcome behavior by putting their sensitive information in the hands of god-knows-who. Not just the mentally unstable, but perhaps even right into the hands of the children the law professes to protect.

There's another problem with this free distribution of sensitive material. It violates international law as well. I suppose if you're going to trash your own Constitution, the treaties and constitutions of other lands are of even less interest to you...

In case you're wondering, arrests are already being made. Innocent people in the adult entertainment industry have already been hauled off to prison and fined under this new regulation ~ not for having produced kiddie porn, but for not being able to prove they haven't produced kiddie porn. In other words, they're being arrested for a crime they haven't actually committed, under the premise of being guilty until (and unless) proven innocent. And that is COMPLETELY contrary to the way United States criminal law has been conducted for the past 100+ years. The guarantee and presumption of "Innocent until proven guilty" may not be written into the Constitution, but it is the 'Golden Thread' of law that traces back to Deuteronomy in the Bible, and became a US Supreme Court decision in 1895, in Coffin v. United States. Apparently Alberto Gonzales draws the line on this longstanding basic guarantee of human rights when it applies to people making porn.

So you may be thinking that yes, this is a problem... a terrible new challenge for the people in the adult entertainment industry to endure, but it's not your problem. Right?

Wrong. This is very much your problem.

First of all, if this thing isn't challenged from every possible angle, and relentlessly, you may lose many of your favorite adult websites. You may find it difficult to find downloads, and they will cost you. And this rich e-Metropolis of free sexual and creative expression we have come to enjoy and rely on for our entertainment will start looking like a ghost town as the porn sites shut down. You may start finding that these regulations will affect more than your experiences online. Because new video content will be harder for companies to produce under these regulations, you'll see less new content show up on websites and in brick-and-mortar video arcades and adult book stores. That's just the tip of this iceberg, guys. This thing will go beyond pornography. Once this becomes a precedent and the fundamental protections our Constitution provides us have been legally compromised, the door will be open to all sorts of additional assaults on our freedoms. The precedent will be set that a person need not commit a crime to be punished for it. The precedent of "guilty until proven innocent" will be set. The precedent of "turning off" Constitutional Amendments that do not suit the political or moral desires of those in power will be set. The precedent that a person can indeed testify against himself will be set. The precedent that a search warrant and due process of law need not be required to search property will be furthered. And the precedent will be set that a law can be changed and made retroactive to punish individuals for things that were legal in the past.

And then even God won't be able to help us.

And here's the rub, lest ye be taken in by this DOJ trickery. With all the rights and protections that the Attorney General is trouncing and side-stepping, there is NOTHING in his new regulations that improves the war on kiddie porn over what the existing 2257 regs currently provide. Gonzales has created a most transparent attack on the porn industry as a whole which he is calling a strike against child pornography in order to get it passed without much resistence. But even worse is his attack on the very integrity of the charters of this country. We have never seen this level of disregard for the law of the land as we are seeing from the office of this Attorney General (as well as by his predecessor, John Ashcroft). So am I predicting gloom and doom? You bet, baby. But as to my being overly dramatic, I do not believe I am. These things are already going into effect. The Free Speech Coalition has filed a motion to suspend the new regs, and will file a separate injunction against the Attorney General to have these new regs, and in fact, the entire 2257 statute nullified. That's no guarantee that this will change anything, and that's why I ask you to take a few minutes to write your congressmen and ask them to rally against the AG and his bullshit law change. It's a law that will put thousands upon thousands of people out of legitimate business, it will compromise your ability to enjoy adult content in the privacy of your own home, and it will cripple the effectiveness of our most cherished national document ~ our Constitution. We, the people, must not let that happen.

Jack

To contact your Congressmen, please follow this link to www.congress.org. The word around Washington is that your Congressmen put more weight into constituent letters received via regular (snail) mail than they put into correspondence received via email. Take the time to print and mail your letter. It's well worth the stamp!



These are my opinions, and I make no apologies for them!
I'm having fun making the most of my First Amendment rights!

More OUTBURSTS to come...



Come Inside with Pride
Visit Our Main Website