Karl Weiss – Das Apellationsgericht von Atlanta hat nach vier Jahren die Strafe für Genarlow Wilson aufgehoben, der es gewagt hatte, bereits unter 18 Sex zu haben.

Georgia, der US-Bundesstaat mit der Hauptstadt Atlanta, so etwas wie die Hauptstadt des Südens der USA, ist seit Jahren fest unter der Knute extremistischer republikanischer Christen, die, wie auch in anderen Bundestaaten, die Strafgesetzgebung nach und nach entsprechend ihren Moralvorstellungen umgestalten.

Der junge Genarlow war dort vor vier Jahren zu 10 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt worden, weil er mit seiner zwei Jahre jüngeren Freundin Oralsex gemacht hatte. Diese Art absurd-hysterischer Gesetze wird über die EU jetzt auch versucht, Europa überzustülpen.

Genarlow hatte mit 17 Jahren eine Freundin, die 15 war. Beide hatten Oralsex und das war herausgekommen. Dies wurde laut einem damals neuen Gesetz als „Kindsmissbrauch“ geahndet, weil in vielen Staaten der USA – und nach einer Gesetzesvorlage der Bundesregierung bald auch in Deutschland – alle unter 18 als „Kinder“ definiert werden und damit der gesamte Bereich von Sex unter Gleichaltrigen, die unter 18 sind, unter „Kinderschändung“ fällt.

Interessant die Frage, warum die junge Dame nicht auch wegen Kindsmissbrauch angeklagt wurde, da sie doch ebenfalls Oralsex mit einem 17-jährigen „Kind“ gemacht hatte.

In Georgia, wie auch in anderen von den christlichen Extremisten gehaltenen US-Staaten (z.B. auch Michigan, also nicht nur Südstaaten; siehe den Fall in Michigan hier kam noch die Besonderheit hinzu: Man hatte keine so schwere Bestrafung für „normalen“ Sex unter Minderjährigen vorgesehen, aber sehr wohl für angeblich perverse Abarten. Darunter fällt nach der Meinung christlich-extremistischer Spinner der Oralsex. Näheres hierzu in diesem Artikel.

Hätte Genarlow mit seiner Freundin nur Sex mit Penetration gemacht, wäre die Höchststrafe 12 Monae Gefängns gewesen. Auch bereits absurd, aber die christlichen Hysteriker sind erprobt darin, immer absurdere Strafbestände zu schaffen.

Nun hatte Genarlow nach zwei Jahren abgebüsster Gefängnisstrafe zum ersten Mal die Möglichkeit, um eine vorzeitige Entlassung auf Bewährung zu bitten und tat dies. Doch der Staatsanwalt tat alles, um seine vorzeitige Entlassung zu verhindern. Auch er ist offensichtlich einer jener „wiedergetauften“ Christen vom Typ Bush, die sich als der wandelnde Wille Gottes auf Erden begreifen.

Der junge Genarlow, verurteilt 2004, ist seit Dezember 2005 im Gefängnis. Sein Anwalt hat nun, da die vorzeitige Freilassung aussichtslos erschien, eine Revision des Verfahrens angestrengt.

Soeben ist die Entscheidung des Appelationsgerichtes mit 4 zu 3 Stimmen gefallen: Die Strafe für Genarlow wurde aufgehoben. Die Mehrheit argumentiert, die Tat von Genarlow sei zwar bestrafenswert gewesen, aber doch in der Schwere nicht mit dem Missbrauch eines Kindes durch einen Erwachsenen zu vergleichen. Die Minderheit dagegen bezog sich auf den zur Tatzeit geltenden Gesetzeswortlaut, der tatsächlich im Fall erschwerender Umstände eine Strafe von 10 Jahren vorsah. Als erschwerender Umstand wurde der Fakt des Oralsexes eingestuft.

Wenn man meinte, Genarlow sei nun freigelassen worden, so irrte man. Im Fall von Aufhebung von Bestrafungen hat die Staatsanwaltschaft das Recht auf eine neue Verhandlung, wenn sie dies beantragt, was hier wohl erfolgen wird. Dann wird es von der Entscheidung eines weiteren Richters abhängen, ob Genarlow bis zu jenem Prozess in Freiheit kommt oder ihn im Gefängnis abwarten muss.

Für Genarlow wird es einen riesigen Unterschied ausmachen, ob es bei der Aufhebung seiner Strafe bleibt oder ob er vorzeitig auf Bewährung entlassen wird, denn in den USA ist jeder rechtskräfteig wegen eines Sexualdeliktes Verurteilte sein Leben lang gebrandmarkt.

Er muss sich lebenslänglich mit seinem Aufenthaltsort melden und wird dann im Internet als „Sex Offender“ gebrandmarkt, mit Foto, Adresse und Benennung seiner Straftat (in diesem Fall „sexueller Angriff mit erschwerenden Umständen auf Minderjährige“).

Auch in Europa beginnen die Regierungen und speziell in Deutschland die christliche Union unter Frau Merkel bereits die ersten Gesetze dieser Art zu versuchen, heimlich, still und leise durch den Bundestag zu bringen. Die entsprechenden Artikel zu diesen Umtreiben sind die beiden Dossiers Verschärfung Sexualstrafrecht Teil 1 und Teil 2.

David Dastych – Warsaw, Tuesday, October 23: Poles went to the polls on Sunday and the turnout was a record high since 1991: 53,8 percent (out of 30 million citizens registered, over 16 million cast the valid votes). The October 21 snap elections in Poland could be the most important since the regime change in 1989. A majority of the voters, including most of the young ones, cast their ballots for the Civic Platform (PO), a pro-business center-right party (41,51 %), expressing their disillusionment with the two years of the rule of the Kaczynski twins’ conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party and their bizarre coalition with the populist Self-Defense (Samoobrona) and the nationalist-right League of Polish Families (LPR).

Yet, Law and Justice remains a strong opposition (32,11%). The post-Communist and post-Solidarity coalition, The Left and Democrats (LiD), came out with 13,15% support and the agrarian Polish Peasants’ Party, the last to be present in the new Sejm (lower chamber), received 8,91% of the votes. The Self-Defense (1,53%) and the League of Polish Families (1,3%) dropped out, as the threshold for the political parties to enter the Sejm is 5%.

Translating the % results to the number of seats in the Sejm: Civic Platform (PO) – 209, Law and Justice (PiS) – 166, The Left and Democrats (LiD) – 54, Polish Peasant’s Party (PSL) – 30, German Ethnic Minority (MN) – 1. The Sejm numbers 460 seats, the necessary majority is 231. That means the winner party (PO) cannot rule alone, must get at least 22 mandates of support from other party (a probable coalition with the PSL provides a majority of 239 mandates). The elections to the Senate: PO – 60 seats, PiS – 49, independent – 1.

The end of the Fourth Republic?
Speaking after the disclosure of the election results, on Sunday night, former President of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski, linked to a proverbial announcement of a Polish actress in 1989 “Communism ended today” and proclaimed “Fourth Republic ended today”. To be true, the Fourth Republic, a concept of the Kaczynski twins, never even materialized.

The big looser of the present elections, the Law and Justice party (PiS), came into being in 2001 as a political movement opposing the post-Communist influence in Poland after the 1989 regime change. Their catching slogans, like “Down with the Commies”, “End corruption”, “Build a Fourth Republic” became popular and assured to PiS and their leaders, Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, an election victory in 2005. Lech Kaczynski became President of Poland, defeating the present elections winner, Civic Platform leader Donald Tusk.

Jaroslaw, his identical twin brother, controlled the government, first “from a back seat”, then as its Prime Minister. But his rule soon got into trouble, due to poor support in the Parliament. A minority government, though supported by the President, could not pass important laws that were to change Poland’s political system from a “bad” Third Republic to a “good” Fourth Republic. Jaroslaw Kaczynski was unable to form a “great coalition” with Donald Tusk’s party, the Civic Platform (PO). The two major parties, PiS and PO, both with a Solidarity background, became opposing camps engaged in bitter fights.

To save his government Jaroslaw Kaczynski had to engage PiS into a bizarre coalition with an agrarian populist Self-Defense (Samoobrona) of Andrzej Lepper and an urban nationalist-right League of Polish Families (LPR) of Roman Giertych, the marginal parties ironically called hors d’oeuvres. Disposing of no other possibility but to impose their authoritarian rule, the Kaczynski twins began a sweeping anti-corruption campaign and replaced former administration officials with their own, often incompetent cronies. From the local administration to the government level a permanent fight resulted. It came out that the new officials, like Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro, and a new powerful Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA), were targeting political opponents and soon also their own coalition members. Scandals, quarrels, eaves-dropping, spectacular arrests (with TV teams waiting to film them) became everyday practices.

Even a justified dissolving of the Communist-infiltrated Military Information Services (WSI) had been carried out clumsily and hastily, without proper attention to the national security. The badly needed and retarded “lustration” (getting rid of former communist agents from the public life) was politically inspired and too much power had been granted to historians and investigators of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), playing with agents’ files for the benefit of the new regime. When it came out that a CBA sting operation targeted one of the Deputy Prime Ministers, the head of the government quickly dismissed both his deputies from the coalition parties.

The hors d’oeuvres had been “eaten up” by Law and Justice, and there was no other way but to announce snap elections. The errors committed by the coalition, the ever present scandals and the arrogance of the ruling group virtually buried up the Fourth Republic. In spite of that Jaroslaw Kaczynski announced its continuation in his final speech following the lost elections.

The last two years were full of strain and many people seemed to be even intimidated by undemocratic methods of the governance, breaches of law and heinous propaganda, aimed at all who didn’t share the ideals of the Fourth Republic or opposed the “Twins-cracy” regime. The defeat of the Law and Justice (PiS) party in the present elections was not so much the result of the majority of the voters turning to the main opposition party (PO) as of their fear of the Fourth Republic dictatorial regime being imposed on them. A sort of a police state, they thought, might have resulted of these ideological projects. Poles had been fed up with the Communist police state in the past, why should they want a new one?

It’s economy, stupid
One of many popular jokes about the Kaczynski twins and their regime alluded to the emigration of Poles to Britain:
“What’s the difference between Poland in World War II and 2007?
In World War II, the Polish government fled to London and the Polish people were at home. In 2007, the Kaczynski twins are home and the Polish people have fled to London.”

Both the President and the Prime Minister boasted in their election campaign speeches about a superb state of the Polish economy, its yearly growth rate exceeding 7 per cent, an inflow of foreign capital equal to some 11 billion US dollars and the rate of unemployment quickly falling down to one digit levels.

As the present economic trends are really exceptionally good for Poland (but not merited by the present government), at the same time over 2 million Poles have left the country to look for better job opportunities and for easier and safer life abroad: in Britain, Ireland, Germany, Belgium and other EU countries, and also in the United States. Several richer states of the European Union, of which Poland is a member since 2004, have opened their job markets for Poles, who can legally work there. The economic emigration is drawing out of the country the best educated and the most enterprising people, mostly young men and women.

Once they get settled abroad, they stay there for a longer time or even for good. Many of them would never have left the country if they could find well-paid jobs and favorable economic and social conditions in Poland. But they couldn’t expect them here, in a country torn by ideological conflicts, with a government turned more to the past than to the future.

Donald Tusk and his fellow party leaders of the Civic Platform (PO) campaigned in Britain and in Ireland among the Polish emigrants, promising them better chances in Poland and getting their support for the PO in the October 21 elections. But the Polish Consulates have organized the voting so badly that thousands of Polish citizens in Britain, Ireland, Belgium and other countries could not cast their votes.

The Civic Platform (PO) has promised to change the economic conditions in Poland for better (“Life will be better”) by promoting free enterprise, simplifying economic laws and regulations, creating more jobs. But it won’t be an easy process and it will take a longer time to be accomplished. After the election victory, Donald Tusk will probably become Prime Minister and he will organize his government. There are some rumors that independent economic experts could become cabinet ministers and that the Tusk government will be moderate in spending and more efficient.

Next months will show how these promises would be carried out. The Law and Justice (PiS) party won the elections in 2005 with a promise of “economical government” and ended with boosting the budgets of the President’s and Prime Minister’s offices to more than 300 million zlotys (some $ 100 million). Last summer, the President flew an almost empty 180-seat Russian-made Tupolev plane to Gdansk and back to Warsaw 2-3 times a week, demanding a Bell helicopter to be flown from Warsaw to Gdansk each time to carry him to the presidential residence in Jurata on Hel Peninsula.

“A ride to Hel(l)”, mocked some journalists. And the hors d’oeuvres leaders, Lepper and Giertych, rode to the Holy Shrine in Czestochowa in their luxury limousines to pray to Black Madonna (incidentally, when TV camera teams were waiting there!). The ostentatious style of the coalition leaders also drew harsh criticism, leading to their defeat.

Poland’s economy is in good shape, in spite of all political turbulences. But everybody knows that favorable trends don’t stay forever and the Polish economic system is in need of deep reform. Like Bill Clinton used to say “It’s economy, stupid!” and he paid attention to the U.S. economic progress, so the newly elected Polish leadership should earmark the economic development their primary target.

Foreign policy and “diplo-cretins”
One of the most respected Polish politicians, former minister of foreign affairs Professor Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, coined a funny but true name for newcomer diplomats installed by the Law and Justice party, calling them “diplo-cretins”. In a pitiless language of the Professor, 85, who has spent many years in German death camps and Communist prisons, this neologism sounds perfectly well. But the inexperienced PiS diplomats, including the Foreign Minister, Mrs. Anna Fotyga, could feel offended.

As in the economy, also in the foreign policy, the Law and Justice party propagandists boasted of extraordinary successes. No less true. The Polish foreign policy needs a complete overhaul to bring it back to the normal international standards. The last two years of the Kaczynskis’ rule sharply undermined Poland’s international reputation and standing, particularly the relationships with Poland’s strong neighbors – Germany and Russia – and also with other members of the European Union. The relations with the United States were seemingly good, but rather unproductive.

As the Polish government kept its 900-strong military contingent in Iraq, in spite of previous promises to withdraw the troops in 2007, and sent 1200 soldiers to Afghanistan on ISAF combat missions with no reward from the U.S.A., adding to more than 1 billion zlotys (USD 300 million) expenses from our taxpayers’ pockets for the distant U.S. wars, we were not able to negotiate favorable terms from the U.S. government for Poland’s agreement to build American “missile shield” on our soil. At the same time the Czechs and the Estonians obtained visa-waivers for their citizens traveling to the United States. As one former Polish diplomat remarked, “Poland is a poor bride without a dowry”. Should that be a rule?

This article was first published at Canada Free Press

Rachel Alexander – Republicans need someone who can command leadership like Ronald Reagan did for conservatives, with an extraordinary theme that draws people in like the „shining city on a hill“ or standing up to the „evil empire.“ In the latest presidential debate, most of the Republican presidential candidates echoed Reagan and brought up his name, but it won’t work the second time around. Reagan’s rhetoric worked for that period in time in the 1980’s, but it must be updated in order to work in the 21st century. The candidate who can successfully figure this out and win the primary will beat Hillary Clinton.

Prior to tonight’s Republican presidential debate in Orlando, Fox News featured a focus group of Republicans with pollster Frank Luntz. Virtually all of the participants were undecided as to which candidate they would vote for, and the consensus was that someone needs to „step forward“ who they can „rally around“ who will provide „vision.“

Republicans need someone who can command leadership like Ronald Reagan

Republicans need someone who can command leadership like Ronald Reagan did for conservatives, with an extraordinary theme that draws people in, like the „shining city on a hill“ or standing up to the „evil empire.“ No Republican candidate has been able to figure that out yet, as was clear in tonight’s debate. Many of the contenders echoed Reagan and brought up his name, but it won’t work the second time around. Reagan’s rhetoric worked for that period in time in the 1980’s, but it must be updated in order to work in the 21st century. The candidate who can successfully figure this out and win the primary will beat Hillary Clinton.

Tonight’s debate appeared scripted, as if the candidates had been provided the questions in advance; many read from their notes and quite a few of their answers were so cleverly done it wasn’t believable they were done ad hoc. The candidates did a great job at dodging tough questions and responding with an affirmative attack instead of defensively answering. The only counterpoint to this was that the questions were excellent, and challenged the candidates on some of the most controversial aspects of their candidacies, from Thompson’s former work for Planned Parenthood to Mitt Romney saying he ran for office in the past to the left of Ted Kennedy.

The most notable part of the debate occurred afterwards, when Fox News asked Florida’s governor Charlie Crist if he was supporting Giuliani, and whether he was contemplating becoming Vice-President. Crist didn’t exactly say no, dodging the question and saying he’s focusing on being governor. Obviously, Crist would be a great candidate to balance out a Giuliani ticket, since he’s from a big swing state that is crucial for a Republican win, and he’s from the south.

The debate was full of surprising answers by the candidates. Some of the most memorable parts of the debate included Senator John McCain’s dodge when asked whether he was a „conservative“ Republican and whether he was reaching out toward conservative Republicans. Instead of answering yes or no, McCain responded that he „hasn’t changed“ and that it’s about „reconciliation.“ He said he was a „reliable, consistent Republican,“ apparently the latest catchy phrase in the McCain camp. This is the same McCain who isn’t sure whether he is Episcopalian or Baptist, and the same McCain who told the audience at Value Voters Summit earlier this month, „I have been pro-life my entire public career. I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim.“ Problem is, McCain voted for federal funding of fetal stem cell research, and has championed so-called campaign finance reform, which pro-life groups adamantly oppose since it has hurt issue groups like them tremendously, restricting them from running campaign ads immediately prior to elections. McCain proved in this debate, once again, that he is no friend of the conservative right.

When Representative Ron Paul declared that 76% of the American people want the war over and to bring the troops home, the audience booed loudly. They also booed when he said we don’t need another Cold War (but wouldn’t a Cold War be better than a real war?). He blamed the „neocons“ for the Iraq War, and said that the current conflict between Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq is Turkey’s business, not ours. Somehow I doubt he’d say the same thing about former Stalinist Russia.

Rudy Giuliani didn’t shy away from saying he’d increase defense spending, noting Gorbachev admitted that Reagan’s continued increases in defense spending is what brought the Soviet Union down. „America can speak softly and carry a big stick.“ When asked, he said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be worse than an armed Iran. Mitt Romney also strongly agreed in beefing up the military, saying the world is still a dangerous place, and Clinton’s peace dividend didn’t work, it got us the dividend but not the peace.

Romney seemed to be the least interested in major reforms to the healthcare system, preferring to praise the centralized healthcare system he helped set up as Governor of Massachusetts, and saying he would not cut benefits to low-income Americans (SCHIP anyone? Is low-income defined as more than 200% of the federal poverty level and earning $80,000/yr?) Governor Mike Huckabee brought up a very important problem with the current healthcare system, which is that 80% of the cost goes to treating chronic diseases, which is lopsided, since we should be focusing more on prevention. He warned that as the baby boomers age, and all the old hippies find out about the free drugs, the cost of healthcare will really become expensive.

Representative Duncan Hunter, who is one of my favorite candidates, proved disappointing, calling for „mirror trade“ with nations like China to require incoming tariffs that match tariffs they place on our goods we export there. Although this sounds good in theory, making our goods as competitive as theirs, it’s not practicable, because they provide lower pay and fewer benefits to their workers, lowering their cost of labor. It would be better if we adopted a more realistic approach to free trade and acknowledged that some lower-skilled jobs are handled more efficiently outside of the U.S. in less educated countries. Hunter also disappointed by saying that Turkey should not cross the border into northern Iraq to rescue their hostages. This directly contradicted Giuliani’s response, which was that although both the northern Iraqi Kurds are our friends and Turkey is our friend, Turkey has the right to defend themselves. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s genocide motion denouncing the Turks for genocide against the Armenians in World War I is nothing more than injecting partisan politics into national security. Tancredo added that Pelosi is pandering for votes and demonstrates complete ignorance of foreign policy implications. He said she’s a bad speaker and an even worse Secretary of State.

As in previous debates, Ron Paul provided an honest perspective on certain issues, but was way off on others. When asked why he didn’t support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Paul responded that marriage should not be in the realm of the government but should be a private religious ceremony, a respectable position considering government tends to botch things up the more areas of life it tries to manage. Mitt Romney was the only one of the top four candidates who supported the ban. He pointed out that in his state of Massachusetts, the only state in the nation where gay marriage is legal, there are problems getting children adopted because parents don’t want to place their child with gay couples. Giuliani took a middle approach, saying that he would only look at a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if too many states started engaging in judicial activism and forcing gay marriage on everyone else. This was a bit surprising considering Giuliani’s past record of supporting gay marriage.

Ron Paul went a little off the deep end when he accused the U.S. of „running a world empire“ which is bankrupting the country. The problem with this statement is it’s one thing to spend too much money on ineffective bureaucratic healthcare and education, welfare, social programs, and pork, but it’s another thing to protect the country militarily.

Congressman Tom Tancredo emphasized his high ratings from conservative organizations. There was a bit of humor when Giuliani helped Tancredo turn a question regarding healthcare into an illegal immigration issue. Tancredo brought up the issue of the cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants ($1 billion per year in California) and the fact that hospitals are closing because they’re not reimbursed for these costs.

Fred Thompson admitted his vote in favor of No Child Left Behind was a mistake. He said that having tests is a good idea, but they must be tests that mean something; the children can’t all have high scores like the children in Lake Woebegone. He emphasized the role of charter schools, vouchers, and local control, and said that more fathers need to stick around and raise their children (if the child custody and child support system didn’t punish them so cruelly, maybe they could).

Chris Wallace got Romney to admit he did not think Hillary Clinton would make a good Commander-in-Chief. Wallace noted that Romney has compared Hillary to Karl Marx. This shows Romney has guts. Romney noted that Hillary has never served in the private sector, hasn’t even run a corner store market, and learning to be president as an intern doesn’t qualify her.

Wallace next told Giuliani that his rivals accuse him of not being any different than Hillary. Giuliani responded by saying there are only two things he agrees with Hillary on. One, they’re both Yankee fans – Giuliani having grown up in NY his entire life, Hillary having grown up in Chicago. Two, Hillary’s recent statement about a future Hillary presidency, „I have a million ideas, but America can’t afford them all.“ Giuliani was in full agreement, adding that America can’t afford Hillary. Giuliani dismissed recent polls showing him 4 points behind Hillary (43% to 47%), by pointing out that current polls at this time in prior races indicated Kerry & Gore were winning. He thanked Florida for the ultimate results in those races, and promised, „We’re not going to boycott Florida the way the Democrats did.“

McCain attacked Hillary’s spending, observing that she had tried to spend $1 million on a Woodstock Concert Museum. He said he wasn’t there, he was tied up at the time. That subtle but powerful contrast got him a standing ovation from the crowd. Overall, McCain was excellent on military defense, saying when he looked at Russian President Vladimir Putin, he saw three letters in his eyes – K.G.B. McCain said we have missile defense systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia and he doesn’t care what Putin thinks about them. Thompson sarcastically noted that the Democrat Party tries our military in the newspaper and when they win or are exonerated it’s relegated to the back pages.

When confronted, Thompson stuck by his statements that Medicare, Medicaid, the prescription drug benefit, and Social Security are too expensive under Bush and are going bankrupt, noting that a GAO report and other reputable studies have indicated so. It was encouraging to hear another candidate in addition to Ron Paul acknowledge this. Thompson said you shouldn’t run for president if you can’t tell the truth. Huckabee noted that the Social Security tables were designed with a retirement age of 65 and death at 67, obviously no longer workable for today’s longer life spans. McCain’s solution sounded outdated and no longer workable, saying we need a bipartisan plan like the one Reagan and Tip O’Neill negotiated in 1983 to save Social Security.

Afterwards, the Republican focus group was mostly undecided as to which candidate won the debate. No one has emerged yet as the 21st century Ronald Reagan, there are yet only outdated copies.

This artcle was first published @ IntellectualConservative.com

Rachel Alexander ist praktizierende Anwältin für die Regierung in Phönix im U.S. Staat Arizona. Als ehemaliges Redaktionsmitglied und Kolumnistin des Arizona Daily Wildcat, gewann sie für ihre journalistischen Arbeiten drei Auszeichnungen und schreibt Kolumnen für IntellectualConservative.com