Thursday, October 25, 2012
Michelle Malkin posted this yesterday regarding the Democrats' recent refusal to return mucho campaign contributions form one JZ Knight.
Included in her post were two videos from YouTube. I will not post them here. Give Michelle the traffic if you want to see them. I will chronicle their content here.
The first video shows an obviously drunk and/or stoned JZ Knight ranting and raving about gay priests engaging in obviously unacceptable behavior as if the Church had condoned it. Never mind that while this was undeniably covered up for a long time (a friend of mine growing up was molested by a priest), the Church has come forth and stood against these transgressions. Never mind that JZ's "school" engages in equally unacceptable behavior with both adults and children on what appears to be a fairly regular basis. This woman is obviously a crazed nutbag that needs to be exposed as the fool (and probably fraud) that she is. There are very few people in this world that I even come close to hating, but blatant hateful hypocrites like JZ Knight do push me hard in that direction.
I do have some issues with the second video, which was obviously prepared by a political opponent of one of JZ's Donk friends. It is very important to me that Ms. Knight's rights are respected in any discourse, especially that regarding her nutty cult and its practices. The video calls to attention various violations of permit codes that violate Ms. Knight's rights by their very existence. Ms. Knight and her "followers", despite the outrage and hate that is her (and by extension their) practice, do have the right to peaceably assemble - in whatever numbers they choose and in whatever place they choose - without permits or revelations of the nature of their assembly. The revelations that she has defied these illegal laws are nearly as offensive as the nature of the bitch's rantings.
Michelle does, however, have a very strong case against the Donks for accepting this woman's money. By doing so, despite their outward rejection of Ms. Knight's rantings, they are fully endorsing her rantings. I make no claim to certainty with regard to what portion of the money should be returned. If a conservative were to make donations to a political party, and it was found that they disagreed with that conservative say 20 percent of the time, would a full refund of the money (that was most likely already spent) be in order? I honestly do not know. The Donks' responsibility here is unclear, however, I do believe that any Donk with any of her money in his/her coffer must strongly consider returning at least a portion consistent with their disagreement or displeasure.
That would probably be the best course of action.