I find it fascinating how good Enyart is at lying. There was part of the article that kept popping up in my head all last night:
"I am not saying that my cousin will sexually molest a child. I am saying that homosexuals have long given aid and comfort to pedophiles, publicly. And I am saying that the media and other defenders of homosexuals are the silent partners of those who work toward the day when children are a sex commodity. The media rejects but intuitively fears the connection between child molestation and homosexuality. It therefore suppresses reports of the torrent of public advocacy for gay pedophilia. Instead, the media wears out the same worn cliché that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals."
So, while he brings up his gay cousin who is adopting, he talks about his opinion that gays are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. He writes an extensive article making several false claims, quotes a few people, and says, "see how they all are?" He claims that the media never talks about child molesters, and in so, defends them (He must not read or watch the news.) He claims that homosexuals, in general, are all for having sex with children, it's just no one wants to appear homophobic.
Oh, but he's not saying that his cousin will probably molest HIS kid. No. That's a horse of a different color. That's not what he's saying at all.
It's clever. It is what he's saying. He makes bold statements, most of which are false, using words like "most" and using inference in order to make a point, yet will not come right out and say, "I fear that my cousin will molest his child BECAUSE my cousin is homosexual." He won't come right out and say it, and in so, has a way out. He just implies it. He infers it. He dances around it. Lies like a pro.
"I am not saying that my cousin will sexually molest a child. I am saying that homosexuals have long given aid and comfort to pedophiles, publicly. And I am saying that the media and other defenders of homosexuals are the silent partners of those who work toward the day when children are a sex commodity. The media rejects but intuitively fears the connection between child molestation and homosexuality. It therefore suppresses reports of the torrent of public advocacy for gay pedophilia. Instead, the media wears out the same worn cliché that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals."
So, while he brings up his gay cousin who is adopting, he talks about his opinion that gays are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. He writes an extensive article making several false claims, quotes a few people, and says, "see how they all are?" He claims that the media never talks about child molesters, and in so, defends them (He must not read or watch the news.) He claims that homosexuals, in general, are all for having sex with children, it's just no one wants to appear homophobic.
Oh, but he's not saying that his cousin will probably molest HIS kid. No. That's a horse of a different color. That's not what he's saying at all.
It's clever. It is what he's saying. He makes bold statements, most of which are false, using words like "most" and using inference in order to make a point, yet will not come right out and say, "I fear that my cousin will molest his child BECAUSE my cousin is homosexual." He won't come right out and say it, and in so, has a way out. He just implies it. He infers it. He dances around it. Lies like a pro.
Last edited:
