Tag Archives: Huffington Post

Florida Couple Face 15 Years in Prison for Sex on the Beach…or Maybe Not

The Young Turks recently claimed that Jose Caballero, 40, and Elissa Alvarez, 20 have been sentenced to 15 years in prison following their Monday May 4, 2015 convictions on two counts each of lewd and lascivious acts for having sex on a public beach in Bradenton Beach, Florida on July 20, 2014. The TYT “army,” comprised mostly of group-thinking militant liberals and atheists, predictably turned this case into a platform from which to propagandize their paranoid anti-conservative, anti-religion demagoguery and lies. According to them, the penalty is excessive, and it is so because of the domination of Christian-conservative fundamentalism in Florida’s political and legal systems; a fundamentalism so puritanically anti-sex even the most innocuous public exhibitions of sex and sexuality are harshly and unreasonably punished. So extreme is the paranoia, demagoguery and lies exhibited by some of these liberals and atheists that they compare the punishment, and, for some, even the making of public sex illegal itself, to the ideology of terrorist organizations, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and fundamentalist, Middle Eastern countries. One TYT fan called the southeastern State, for example, “Saudi Florida.” No justification is provided for these analogies, and there is none that can be offered; they are faulty comparisons merely made either for their emotional appeal or because their originators are delusional and hysterical enough to believe them. If Florida was even remotely close to what they allege, the disgusting public displays of sexual depravity exhibited in the State during events like Spring Break and Gay Pride would not be allowed and transgressors would be severely punished. Notice too that it is only religious terrorists and theocracies that atheists and liberals use as the standard for these juxtapositions, not atheist terrorists, like the Tamil Tigers, or state atheist “utopias,” like China and North Korea, where punishments for the same or lesser offenses are just as harsh or worse. Of course not! To them it is only religion that “poisons everything” and is “the root of all evil” whereas atheism is the realization of Shangri-la. Well one such atheist Promised Land is North Korea, which punishes lewd behavior with a trip to a labor camp with intense work requirements, daily beatings, physical punishments, harsh living conditions, usually “with 300 to 400 people sleeping crowded into one room,” and such a lack of food that inmates feed off such things as rats and grass. At first, however, I too believed the potential punishment for this couple to be excessive for what appears to be a victimless, nonviolent offense that could be handled under public nuisance laws carrying a much lighter sentence, often simply a fine, and thus I began to investigate why they were tried under a stricter statute. As I became aware of the context of the charges, I began to endorse the punishment.

As usual, the Young Turks got their facts wrong, and a quick fact check proved that the couple have not yet been sentenced but that 15 years is only the maximum penalty for these individuals’ indiscretion under the statute under which they were prosecuted. The couple are not facing this punishment because of some ideological or religious domination in Floridian law but because their sex act was witnessed by a 3 year old girl thus making them subject to statute 800.04, which governs the prosecution and punishment of a number of “(l)ewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age,” including sexual assault and battery, sexual coercion, sexual molestation and statutory rape. In other words, their offense is covered by a law aiming to protect children, and punish a host of minor and serious sex crimes against or in the presence of them. Perhaps those complaining about the alleged “severity” of the potential penalties are unaware that this is why the maximum sentences are what they are, or maybe they still do not believe such sexual violations and corruption of minors are serious crimes, or crimes at all. Unless, of course, it is committed by religious people and religious authorities. Then they become great crimes to these people; not out of concern for the children, mind you, but because such violations can be exploited to attack religion, religious people and religious institutions. If these liberals and atheists truly want to protect children from sexual crimes, corruption and exploitation then they will want all such malfeasance punished regardless of who or what the culprit is, and they will see this law for what it is – ideologically and religiously neutral. They do not have to support the maximum penalty in this particular case but they must accept that it is being applied solely because it is the applicable statute and not for any ideological or religious motive. It is that simple!

Had a child not been present, these individuals would likely have been tried under a statute carrying lighter penalties, like 877.03, which deals with disorderly conduct and carries a maximum of  “60 days in jail or 6 months of probation, and a $500.00 fine.” Because 800.04 includes such serious transgressions, though, the maximum sentences must be strong enough to punish, and hopefully deter, them effectively. Thus, for those who are convicted but under 18 years of age, the sentence is a minimum prison sentence of 24.5 months and, at the judge’s discretion, a maximum of 5 years in prison, 5 years of sex offender probation and or $5,000 in fines. For those over 18, the maximum punishment is 15 years in prison, 15 years of sex offender probation and/or $10,000 in fines. Unless certain criteria for exemption is met, those convicted must also register as a sex offender. Remember these are maximum penalties that not all crimes will receive. The punishment is to be proportional to the crime. Two consenting adults having sex in public is certainly not as detrimental and serious as other crimes covered by this law, and nobody involved has claimed it to be, and thus violators would normally probably receive a lighter sentence. State Attorney Ed Brodsky explicitly says “It was never our intention to seek 15 years for either of them…That’s not a reasonable sentence.”

In fact, Florida never wanted to prosecute this case and instead offered the defendants plea deals sentencing Caballero’s to prison for 2.5 years and Alvarez to jail for 90 days, and excluding them from the sex offenders registry. Both these deals were rejected by the defendants. Some in the media say that even under these  deals the punishment is worse than that meted out in some fundamentalist Middle Eastern countries. Buzzfeed, for example, argues that Caballero’s deal was “notably more severe than the maximum two-year prison sentence for a similar offense in the United Arab Emirates, where a British couple were sentenced to three months in prison (though deported before serving any time) for indecent behavior on a beach in 2008.” Notice the lack of context in that statement as it doesn’t state that Caballero would have received a longer sentence not because of his sexual indiscretions but because this is his second felony in less than 3 years after being released from prison,  where he had spent 8 years for cocaine trafficking. For this same reason, the State is allegedly now pushing for Caballero to receive the maximum 15 years in prison (although some reports say it not pursuing this sentence); a lesser punishment for Alvarez is being pursued, which may or may not involve jail time. Both will be registered as sex offenders. Funny how these details are ignored by those whining that the couple is being “harshly” punished merely for having public sex because of Florida’s alleged theocracy. The mainstream media has not helped the matter because it has preferred sensationalizing the prospective sentence while omitting or glossing over the context of the case, as I have in this blog.

Public sex is detrimental enough to contribute to the corruption of public morals, to “outrage the sense of public decency” and to “affect the peace and quiet of persons,” all of which are dealt with under statute 877.03. Had a child not witnessed this act, a lesser charge likely would have been pursued by the State. As it is, a child was present and thus prosecution under 800.04 is right! Having rejected the plea deals, which I believe were fair, I fully endorse Caballero receiving the maximum punishment, because he is a repeat offender, and Alvarez receiving jail time and perhaps a fine. These 2 have made their bed and must now lie in it.

1 Comment

Posted by on May 13, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Beckie Francis Fired for Pushing Religion/Christianity? Probably Not.

Oakland University fired its women’s basketball coach, Beckie Francis, for allegedly abusing her players emotionally and mentally, obsessing over their weights and eating habits, with some players supposedly developing eating problems, and “pushing” Christianity upon them. Forget the first two reasons, it is the latter one which has raised the ire of liberals and atheists, and is the focal point of their “news” sources, like the Huffington Post and The Young Turks. This is also why these people are usually silent over alleged nonreligious abuses by coaches, like the serial physical and verbal abuse of Bobby Knight; they only care about “abuse” when it is linked with religion. Of course these liberals and atheists are so paranoid, sensitive and zealous that their claims of religion being “pushed” are meaningless.  To them, “pushing” religion can mean simply being Christian, wearing a crucifix or encouraging reading a wide range of material that includes religious texts, or perceived/alleged religious texts.

However, nothing in this case has yet been substantiated. We do not know exactly why Francis was fired. She was coach for over 13 years, never having received a negative comment, discipline or warning. If she had done any of this, especially bringing religion in the classroom, it is more likely than not that she would have at least been brought before a university disciplinary hearing and subsequently reprimanded. Oakland University apparently fears giving Francis & her legal team a confidential version of her termination report that is not redacted, claiming it would allow the complainants to be identified. Nonsense! If this is true, then the system is corrupt because it could allow for any unsubstantiated or manufactured claim  to become the basis for termination, with those terminated never having the opportunity to properly defend themselves or challenge their firing in court. The University is hiding something, & may actually be in contravention of the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right-to-Know Act.

Regarding that alleged “pushing” of religion on her players, apparently she insisted they “attend church services on trips, showed “Christian-based videos on bus rides” and posted religiously-inspired tweets. Thus, “insisting” now becomes “pushing.” Whom was she “insisting?” Was it all players, or her Christian players, which probably comprise the vast majority of her team.

What are “Christian-based videos?” Movies? Televangelist programs? Sermons? What were the purposes of said videos? Entertainment? Proselytizing? “Christian-based videos” is not the same as “pushing” religion; for example, “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a Christian-based movie but its wider, inspirational message about family, hope, life, overcoming struggles are not limited to religion. Had she shown atheist anti-religious videos, this would not be an issue. You may attack religion, but not defend it. This double standard liberals and atheists believe is enshrined in the First Amendment.

Francis allegedly posted religious tweets, including Isaiah 40:31. How this constitutes “pushing” religion or how this can be a basis for termination are unknown. I am unaware that quoting Scripture outside school on the internet is “pushing” religion or violating the First Amendment. “Pushing,” as used in this case, used to mean “forcing” or “coercion;” in other words, you would have no other choice but to adopt Christianity. Nobody in this case is being forced to believe anything and no law is being enacted by Congress establishing a religion or prohibiting the free expression of any religion. The latter, however, is stealthy being done atheists and activist judges corrupting and applying the First Amendment in their own, unconstitutional image.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on November 14, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Loaded Language and Political Gain: The Exploitation of George Tiller’s Murder By Abortion Supporters

Whenever there are incidents of crime against abortion providers or supporters, the pro-abortion lobby gears up its propaganda machine to blame the whole pro-life movement for those crimes, such as the murder of abortionist Dr George Tiller or Eric Rudolph’s bombing of an Atlanta abortion clinic. According to the pro-abortion lobby, founded on a philosophy that champions hate, violence and other bad/criminal things against abortion supporters and providers, the pro-life campaign naturally produces followers who endorse and execute criminal, terrorist and militant acts against the latter. However, this characterization of the pro-life movement is wrong and unfounded and is simply an attempt by the pro-abortion lobby to defame and discredit the movement, paving the way for its persecution, oppression and ultimate destruction.

There is a very vocal and visible aspect of the pro-abortion lobby that exploits crimes allegedly committed by those claiming affiliation with the pro-life movement, like Tiller’s murder, in an attempt to garner political and moral advantage over the movement by spinning such crimes as indicative of the entire movement. A movement which, therefore, must be stopped, or at least weakened, in all respects, politically, morally, philosophically, legally and so forth. (for example, check here, here and here. However, those who would put forth such assertions about the pro-life movement have never been able to substantiate them with hard evidence. As proof, therefore, such individuals offer nothing more than a mishmash of unsubstantiated, untenable, obscure, irrational, illogical arguments and statements but which are carefully worded, tactfully employing emotive or loaded language (like hate, violent, terrorist, and so forth). The famous liberal, pro-abortion and icon of the Left site The Huffington Post, for instance, is rife with such characterizations, like from Jeffrey Feldman, Shannon Moore and Mary Mapes. Notice how they also try and connect Christians with abortion violence; even though abortion is not exclusively a Christian issue but is, rather, one which cuts across many political, religious and irreligious lines.

The aim of emotive or loaded language is to extract the conditioned, negative, irrational, paranoid response and perspectives from people that it tends to incite towards their subject, like disgust, fear, loathing, condemnation and discrediting of the entire pro-life movement. Information about loaded language may be found here, here and here. For example, the National Organization for Women stated the day after Tiller’s murder that “the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security must root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded (anti-abortion) criminal acts for decades.” Who or what is the “criminal enterprise?” Who are the “domestic terrorists and violent racketeers?” The vagueness of these concepts is deliberate for they are meant, of course, to generalize the entire pro-life movement, from the most pacifist to the most violent elements, both words and actions as some kind of terrorist organization and/or a type of organized crime that is an imminent threat not only to the safety of the individual, community and/or society but also to national security, the American way of life, the Constitution and so forth. Similar sentiments, as we have seen, have been expressed by many others in the mainstream pro-abortion movement and media.

When such pejorative perceptions of the pro-life movement is successfully rooted in the mind of the public and especially those with political and judicial power, the social, political and legal opposition to and persecution and oppression of the movement becomes easier to foment, justify and normalize. In other words, attacking and ultimately denying the Constitutional rights of pro-life individuals and organizations not only becomes possible but also legitimate. At this point, the longstandng objective of many in the pro-abortion movement of silencing, marginalizing and rendering irrelevant the pro-life movement, thereby enabling abortion to thrive uncontested, unquestioned and uncriticized becomes evermore possible. Nothing endangers Constitutional rights more than irrationality and paranoia. As Father Frank Pavone states, “I wouldn’t put it past abortion advocates in Congress to use this tragedy to put more protections in place for the so-called right to choose.” We have witnessed the political persecuation of the pro-life movement in recent history. During the Clinton presidency, for example, even the most pacifist pro-life campaigners were targetted by the State, such as labelling nuns praying on the sidewalk by abortion clinics as terrorists and subsequentally targetted by police and many pro-life organizations, like Life Dynamics, who were in no way linked to violent activity being spied upon, including having their mail opened. You can check here, here.

With a pro-abortion President Obama in office combined, with Tiller’s death, the resulting paranoia and the recently released report “Rightwing Extremism” in which the pro-life movement is given special attention, the attacks on the Constitutional rights and freedoms of the latter from the highest offices in America may have been reinvigorated. We already know that Attorney General Eric Holder has directed U.S. Marshals to protect “approprite people and facilities around the nation”…in order to “help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.” What this means is unclear. It could mean that any person, group, activity, speech, expression can be arbitrarily targetted on the basis of preventing “any related acts of violence from occurring” or under the guise of “Homeland security.” How this current wave of hysteria against the pro-life movement plays out, if it has any longterm force and what its eventual consequences will be obviously remains to be seen. What is clear, though, is the pro-life movement is facing stiff opposition from the public, the mainstream media and political and legal forces in Amerca’s highest offices reinforced, perhaps even encouraged, by the propaganda of the pro-abortion lobby. The pro-life movement must, however, continue its message against abortion while making it clear that violence of any kind against abortion providers and/or supporters is unnacceptable, counter-productive and hypocritical to the whole idea of pro-life.


Posted by on July 22, 2009 in abortion, Dr. George Tiller


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anti Abortion, Pro Life Movement Not to Blame for Dr George Tiller’s Murder

The liberal media, bloggers and pro-abortion lobby have attempted to link the entire pro-life movement to the death of abortionist Dr George Tiller ever since his May 31, 2009 slaying, spinning the latter, the act of one individual, supposedly a pro-life supporter, as indicative, exemplary and normal of the entire pro-life movement. Many have exploited this crime to argue that it is time to legally and politically clamp down on the hate, violence, terrorism and harassment, in deed and in word, of which the whole pro-life movement is guilty, directly and indirectly. For example, NOW’s statement. However, to accuse and convict the whole pro-life movement of Tiller’s murder and of hate, violence, terrorism, harassment, and related concepts, whether in word or deed, whether directly or indirectly, is wrong, untenable and simply obscures reality. In this time where irrationality, hysteria and paranoia are easy to incite and pander to, we need to take a step back and objectively analyze the situation and the abortion debate for there is nothing tangible, concrete and direct anyone can legitimately use as evidence to objectively accuse, prosecute, convict and condemn the entire, or even a majority of, the pro-life movement of direct or indirect involvement in Tiller’ s murder or of hate, violence, terrorism or harassment and other criminal things in any sense.

Those who would charge the whole pro-life movement with involvement in Tiller’s murder have not proven any causal link between the two but rather have assumed it according to their own prejudices, and thus the charge is void in every sense and must be dismissed until concrete and direct evidence can be provided. Such an accusation is premised on the assumption that the pro-life movement is founded on hate, violence, terrorism, harassment and related concepts which organically foments and fuels criminal and extremist pro-life activities. A Houston Chronicle editorial exemplifies this, stating the pro-life movement has “indulged” in “hate-filled rhetoric…for decades…establishing a climate that accepts and even condones violence against abortion providers.” Similar sentiments have been echoed by Mike Hendricks and Yael T. Abouhalkah, at the Kansas City Star, Satchel Robinson at Daily Kos, Adele Stan at The Huffington Post, Susan J. Demas at Capitol Chronicle, among many others. Again, there is no objective and concrete proof that this is what the pro-life movement is based on, especially as it pertains to the entire pro-life movement, and thus must be dismissed as a false generalization.

The pro-life movement involves many different organizations and individuals from all walks of life, cutting across religious, political and economic backgrounds and beliefs. These include atheists, agnostics, conservatives, feminists, liberals, medical practitioners, people and organizations of various religious faiths and so forth. According to a Gallup poll released in May, 2009, a majority of Americans are pro-life. With the exception of a fringe minority of extremists, pro-life supporters have never promoted, encouraged, supported or partaken in what would legally be considered criminal or militant activity like violence, murder, hate, terrorism, harassment and so forth. The unequivocal public denunciation by the majority, mainstream of the pro-life movement of such words and deeds by individuals claiming to be part of the pro-life movement should be proof enough. Every mainstream pro-life organization has condemned, for example, Tiller’s murder. Many pro-life opponents may question or deny the sincerity of such disapproval, but such people most likely do not know us in the pro-life movement, what we truly feel in our hearts and minds and are judging us through their own prejudices. Some may even be exploiting such criminal actions to attain political advantage over the pro-life movement. Mary Kay Culp, Executive Director of Kansans for Life sums it up well saying “the actions of militants do not represent the agenda of the anti-abortion movement and are a setback to its goals.” We in the pro-life movement do use sharp criticisms, critiques and explicit visuals (like pictures and videos) and make use of political and legal avenues to denounce and stop what we see as a wrong. This should not be spun or considered as anything other than what it is – civilized opposition to abortion. The majority, mainstream pro-life movement is peaceful and pacifist, in word and in deed.

Secondly, what do these individuals mean by hate, violence, terrorism or harassment and other pejorative labels they attach to the pro-life movement? These terms are used so loosely and subjectively that anything with which they disagree may be labeled as such, and thus such terms merely reflect and express the biases and prejudices of those who use them rather than the truth of those upon whom they are placed. Therefore it is important to carefully discern what is really being targeted when opponents and critics of the pro-life movement use such terms as any disagreement, opposition or criticism to their beliefs, ideology, perspective can be spun as “hate,” “terrorism,” violence,” “harassment,” and related concepts. Tiller, for instance, called the whole campaign against him “terrorism,” and not just the criminal acts against him, which were, again, vilified by the mainstream pro-life movement.

Criminal and/or militant activity is not what the mainstream, majority of the pro-life movement wants or needs. On the one hand, the pro-life movement realizes such activity would be political, moral and social suicide as its adversaries would exploit them to condemn the movement and its goals and advance calls for its political and legal persecution, which is what is happening now. On the other hand, the pro-life movement understands that such activity is not only illegal but also inherently wrong and immoral regardless of the responses it would incite from the movement’s adversaries or the type of media coverage it would garner. If the pro-life movement is to maintain its moral advantage over the pro-abortion campaign, the former must respect the law and all life regardless; anything less is hypocrisy. Murder is murder whether it is by the abortionist or by someone against abortion, whether it is the unborn child or the abortion doctor, and thus must be condemned as such. If we are to arbitrarily decide who lives and who dies, we will become a nation in chaos, a lawless nation in which nobody can be safe and in which anybody can be targeted by anyone, at anytime, for any reason. As Princeton law professor Robert P. George in National Review says “let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.” Anyone, then, linking violent acts of extremists with the mainstream, majority of the pro-life movement either does so out of ignorance, prejudice and/or as an attempt to garner political and/or moral advantage over their adversaries and must be dismissed as such unless direct proof can be used to substantiate their claims.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,