moonbattery.gif


« California House Speaker Calls Conservatives "Terrorists" | Main | Open Thread »


June 29, 2009

Gay Duke University Official Offered Adopted Child for Sex

The left has suffered a minor setback in its progressive march toward a diverse and tolerant future:

A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering a 5-year-old boy for sex.
Frank Mccorkle Lombard, the school's associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested Wednesday, June 24 after an Internet sting, according to the FBI's Washington field office and the city's police department. …
Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person — who he did not know was a police officer — to travel to North Carolina to have sex with a child.
The detective's affidavit charges Lombard said in an online chat that he had sexually molested the boy. The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy and even suggested which hotel he should use.
…Lombard said he "was into incest" and had adopted two African-American children, the affidavit says.

Lombard has some advice for his fellow child rapists: black children are easier to adopt, and knock them out with Benadryl before molesting them. The children were adopted by Lombard and his homosexual partner.

As you'll recall, when a drunken prostitute made false rape accusations against Duke lacrosse players, the faculty loudly denounced them, with no need for evidence. But the moonbats aren't so loud when the rape is real.

On tips from Viking04, Gregory of Yardale, V the K, and Henry.

Posted by Van Helsing at June 29, 2009 10:11 AM

Comments

Despicable. I hope the two pervs get sent away for life and those poor kids are given a home where they will be able to be children instead of sex toys.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 29, 2009 10:25 AM

Pfft. Jomama's probably got a couple of positions in the administration open for them.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at June 29, 2009 10:39 AM

I am waiting for one of our lefty trolls to chime in with, "He's not gay, he's a pedophile." (Never mind he has been in a relationship with another man for several years.)

Or maybe they will insist its unfair to taint a whole group of people with one man's sin; but Mark Sanford proves all Republicans are cheating hypocrites.

Does anyone think the media would be burying this story if Frank Lombard were a Republican party official?

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 10:49 AM

And where is Al Sharpton? Wasn't he screaming for blood on behalf of the black stripper? Don't these black children deserve the same outrage from him? The NAACP? Where are they?

Posted by: Seamus at June 29, 2009 10:49 AM

Van:

Check the local news story (news and observer) that I sent you on this one Friday night. Compare it to the tone of the coverage from the 'Duke Lacrosse Rape' case. I predict that the faculty Senate will not snap into 'lynch mode' in this instance as they did then.

Posted by: Viking04 at June 29, 2009 10:50 AM

Mr. Evilwrench, I was thinking the same thing after I posted. The left won't want punish these child abusers, they'll want to turn them into martyrs for sexual freedom.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 29, 2009 11:23 AM

Send him to prison for life and feed him on bread and water without the water

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at June 29, 2009 11:25 AM

Gee, who could have thought that liberal policies could lead to this?

(Looking around, and hesitantly raising hand)

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 12:05 PM

This is, perhaps, a tired meme. But I seriously doubt that a white guy who like having sex with black children is going to do well in general population. Though he definitely deserves a chance to try.

Posted by: baslimthecripple at June 29, 2009 12:25 PM

So where are our resident communist trolls? Surely they want to claim that this wouldn't have happened if this shirtlifter had been able to get "married."

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 12:26 PM

Must be frustrating for leftards. Rich white guys raping underpriviliged blacks is like the holy grail of leftist self righteous outrage. The first time it happens at Duke, they turn up to the party in force, only to have their fun cut short what with it being completely fabricated. Now a real one's happened, they still can't play at being crusaders for social justice 'coz the damn rapist's gay.

Never mind, leftists, third time lucky.

Posted by: O Muorto Che Pparla at June 29, 2009 12:30 PM

Why do you have so much interest in this? Why does it not make it in here every time a supposedly straight married guy molests a girl?

The guy is sick and deserves whatever they give him, nobody would argue that. The point that one might argue is that he is not an example of anyone's behavior but his own.

"Gee, who could have thought that liberal policies could lead to this?" Yeah, its never happened before, right? Definitely not when a republitard was in office.


Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 12:47 PM

Oops, spoke too soon. That paragon of moral probity, "Anonymous," checks in with a lame and indefensible "tu quoque" argument.

For those who lack the cognitive abilities to take my point about liberal policies, I was referring specifically to the liberal policy of allowing homosexuals - who are notorious for their "interest" in boys - to adopt children.

That is a liberal policy, is it not? And on its face, wasn't this the stuff of liberal gushing about "diversity" - a homosexual "couple" (/spit) adopting two African-American boys? So the whole thing was a totally predictable outcome of liberal policies.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 12:55 PM

It has nothing whatever to do with who is in office. Obviously.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 12:55 PM

I was referring specifically to the liberal policy of allowing homosexuals - who are notorious for their "interest" in boys - to adopt children.

I for one understood the inference. That's also why you want to get rid of catholic orphanages as well, right?

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 1:12 PM

Brandy good to see that you are still speaking up for the scum of the Earth. I wouldn't have expected less.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at June 29, 2009 1:15 PM

Yet another "tu quoque" argument.

And to answer your question, yes, hell yes, if they're promoting perversion.

But be a man and admit the point: this was a totally forseeable - and foreseen - outcome of the liberal policy of allowing homosexuals to adopt children. It was one of the major arguments Americans made against the liberal proposal to allow this.

True or false?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 1:22 PM

No Brandon, that's why we want to get rid of homosexual priests and religious. And when I say get rid of them, I just mean keep them out of the priesthood and religious life.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 29, 2009 1:33 PM

True or false?

It depends if you think the Family Research Council is a reputable source of information or simply a propaganda machine.

If you do a google search for 'research homosexuals pedophiles', you'll see that the groups making the claim that there is a link are conservative groups, not scientific groups.

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 1:42 PM

"a person — who he did not know was a police officer"

Entrapment!!!

Posted by: C-Bug at June 29, 2009 1:43 PM

Man up: true or false?

Lots of people - including me - expressed concern about allowing homosexuals to adopt kids, and for exactly this reason. I don't know anything about the Family Research Council, and care less.

And as for the link, consider the word "pederast." Do you know what it means? It refers to an adult man who has sexual relations with a boy as the passive partner. The phenomenon is so common that it's had its own word for centuries. The problem has been recognized that long.

So quit weaseling off the hook and admit it - the liberal policy of allowing homosexuals to adopt children led to this problem in a totally forseeable fashion.

Put it another way: would you allow a frat house to adopt underaged Russian girls? Why not?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 1:51 PM

The problem is this, since liberals apparently lack the intellect and/or the honesty to admit there is a problem: even if most homosexuals weren't interested in boys - doubtless untrue - allowing them to adopt will select for the ones who are interested.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 1:54 PM

"lame and indefensible "tu quoque" argument."

I wasn't saying that the guy shouldn't be punished, or throwing out a "you too!" The point is that there are freaks, some straight, some gay. The point is that you make this about the gayness of the couple, and I merely say that isn't the reason. The reason is this person is perverted. Just as the straight couple who adopts a kid then molests that kid.

YOUR argument infers that we shouldn't adopt to straight people either, since it has happened in that instance as well.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 1:56 PM

"allowing them to adopt will select for the ones who are interested."

So the straight couples who are interested in adopting selects for those who are interested in molesting kids too? Is that the only motivation for adopting then?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 2:03 PM

The problem is this, since liberals apparently lack the intellect and/or the honesty to admit there is a problem: even if most homosexuals weren't interested in boys - doubtless untrue - allowing them to adopt will select for the ones who are interested.

The reason the scientific method is used is because the hypothesis is many times wrong. The hypothesis must be tested, or there is a missing piece to your hypothesis.

I can see how you could read the many news articles where a man molests a young boy and come to the common sense conclusion that homosexuals are more apt to be pedophiles.

From doing about 10 minutes worth of reading on the web, it appears to me that the scientific literature suggests that most child molesters are neither heterosexual or homosexual, that is they are not attracted to men or women but young children.

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 2:06 PM

VH, for some reason I can't post a series of links to papers in PubMed. Any ideas?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2009 2:22 PM

Another Democrat kiddie fiddler. Truly a sick group of people. One might call them "terrorists". I certainly would.

Posted by: Right0fReagan at June 29, 2009 2:22 PM

My father was director of a regional parole and probation department out west here, and for years previous to being a director had a caseload where he worked specifically with sexual offenders (rapists and pedophiles) and has said on more than one occasion that this premise of pedophiles being gay is completely untrue.

He says that they are predators and that they masquerade as either straight or gay, but are really only interested in children.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 2:23 PM

The point that one might argue is that he is not an example of anyone's behavior but his own.

But Mark Sanford proves that all Republicans are cheaters and hypocrites.

Whatever.

this premise of pedophiles being gay is completely untrue.

In this case, though, we have a gay dude who was in a relationship with another gay dude. So that rationalization... even if its true (anonymous trolls always miraculously seem to know someone that validates their talking point)... doesn't wash here.

Find some new talking points, trolls boys. Your old ones are getting tired.

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 2:36 PM

A man in a homosexual relationship with an adult molests his male adopted son and pimps his son out to be molested by another strange male, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Alrighty, then!

Posted by: Judith M. at June 29, 2009 2:44 PM

All homosexuals are perverts no matter what defense is presented to cloud the public perception. In this case to knowingly force children to live with two queens is bad enough, but the rest...


Posted by: Lord Crimson at June 29, 2009 2:47 PM

To V the K and Judith,

Do you not see how its your thinking that doesn't wash? Are you going to deny that there are thousands of supposedly "straight" guys out there who molest children?

So I could ask back: A man in a straight married relationship has his own kids, or adopts them, only to sexually molest and pimp out those kids, and it has nothing to do with his heterosexuality?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 2:54 PM

My answer to that question by the way is "no"

He was a pedophile and attracted to children in the first place. His marriage was only his cover story.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 3:04 PM

But Mark Sanford proves that all Republicans are cheaters and hypocrites.

I think I missed something here

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 3:18 PM

You speak with such authority about this case leftard anonymous troll. Could it be someone very "close" to you? Where exactly did you meet Lombard, in a Haight Asbury steam bath? More than once?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 3:21 PM

Well, anony, in my book, a man who engages in heterosexual relationships with women, but on occasion molests girls (but not boys), is a heterosexual with heterosexual pedophile tendencies. I am aware that some pedophiles have no gender preference when it comes to the children they molest, but plenty of them do, and when they do exhibit a clear gender preference, I think labeling them as heterosexual or homosexual pedophiles is completely appropriate.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 29, 2009 3:21 PM

And I suppose it's not at all possible that gay person would marry a woman to cover up his attraction to children of the same sex?

No, of course not. That would never happen.

Please. I was on a gay chat board in college, and the issue of NAMBLA. When gay people don't think anyone is watching, they're a bit more open. In this case, there was about a quarter of the board willing to say underage sex was unequivocally wrong, and about a third that said it was okay, and the rest would say "I don't want to judge."

Is NAMBLA excluded from gay pride parades because all the barebackers and leathermen and drag queens are appalled by the immorality of sex with children? Or would it just be bad PR to include them? (Nancy Pelosi, for the record, marched side-by-side in a Pride Parade with one of the founders of NAMBLA. Nuff said.)

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 3:24 PM

VH, for some reason I can't post a series of links to papers in PubMed. Any ideas?

I can't wait to see what the impact factor is of the journals publishing these articles.

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 3:31 PM

"You speak with such authority about this case"

No, I'm speaking in general. Your reading comprehension is apparently low.


"I think labeling them as heterosexual or homosexual pedophiles is completely appropriate."

I don't care what you want to call them. The point is that they are sickos who molest kids. This post was started and commented on with the tone and understanding that it was another "proof" that gay people are pedophiles. Since you acknowledge that there are people out there ... "straight pedophiles" as you wish to call them ... where does it leave your argument? Um, in the crapper.


Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 3:33 PM

No Brandon, that's why we want to get rid of homosexual priests and religious. And when I say get rid of them, I just mean keep them out of the priesthood and religious life.

The problem is that because many priests are homosexual, it clearly indicates that being a priest causes people to become homosexual, so we have to get rid of the priest hood to get rid of the homosexuals to get rid of the pedophiles. It's just common sense, ya know?

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 3:34 PM

"Is NAMBLA excluded from gay pride parades because..."

Let me finish that for you: ...because NAMBLA supports sex with children and that's not what gay folks are about.

Again, I say turn the argument around and see how it fits. If there were a group that supported — in Judtith's words — straight pedophilia, would you let them march in your local 4th of July parade? Of course not. Is that because it would "just be bad PR" or would it also be because it criminal, regardless of whatever child-humping Republican might have marched next to them?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 3:40 PM

Please. I was on a gay chat board in college, and the issue of NAMBLA.

Yeah and I was on a random internet chatroom and...

I decided a properly controlled scientific study might be a better way of learning the truth.

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 3:42 PM

Brandon, most homosexual priests had homosexual experiences before they ever entered the seminary. What happened in many seminaries was that once homosexuals took positions of control in the seminaries, they were able to "gatekeep," and surprise, surprise, the homosexual rectors kept out heterosexual candidates and loaded up with homosexual candidates. If we purge the seminaries of this homosexual influence, we'll be able to reverse the process.

And anon, I don't think ANYONE is making the argument that all homosexuals are pederasts. Unfortunately, there are boatloads of cases of homosexuals abusing young males, it happened in the Catholic Church, it happens in the public schools, and there are even organizations that cater to the disorder (does NAMBLA ring a bell?). But even putting aside the sex abuse issue, it's a huge injustice to place a child with a homosexual couple, because it exposes that child to all sorts of unnecessary stress and deprives him or her of the experience of being raised by a mother AND a father.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 29, 2009 3:46 PM

I decided a properly controlled scientific study might be a better way of learning the truth.

Like The American Psychological Association's study that said adult-child sex was no big deal.

If there were a group that supported ... straight pedophilia, would you let them march in your local 4th of July parade?

Does such a group exist? Strangely it does not. Hmmmmmm... maybe it's because there's more tolerance for a NAMBLA type group among gays than there is in the straight community for a like group.

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 3:58 PM

To sum up the Liberal trolls' posts:

"Yes, this was wrong, but CONSERVATIVES ARE MEAN!"

Why can't you Liberal idiots make a case without attacking the messenger?

And by the way, this is the result of the "sexual revolution" and "free love" that was started and promoted by the people who called themselves "progressives" and "Liberals".

Posted by: KHarn at June 29, 2009 4:02 PM

Actually, Kharn, I think the liberal trolls are saying, "This is wrong, but don't use it against us the way we use comparatively minor offenses by conservatives against you because that isn't fair!"

Also, "Don't you dare suggest a man who molests boys is in any way homosexual."

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 4:10 PM

BTW, before I was allowed to adopt my foster son as a single father, I had to go through a grueling series of psychological evaluations precisely because that state wanted to make sure I wasn't going to do what Frank Lombard did.

I bet if North Carolina had tried the same with Frank Lombard, the ACLU and the HRC would have screamed bloody murder.

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 4:13 PM

KHarn, I haven't attacked anyone. Don't "sum up" if you can't read. That's the order ... read first, then sum up, not the other way around.

"this is the result of the "sexual revolution"" no, it isn't. Pederasty has unfortunately been around for a lot longer than since the 60's I'm afraid. And the revolution never promoted pederasty either. You're wrong all the way around on that one.

"I don't think ANYONE is making the argument that all homosexuals are pederasts." You are joking, right? Why immediately jump to NAMBLA if that's not the implication?

"it's a huge injustice to place a child with a homosexual couple," because they'd be better off rambling around in the foster care system?

"maybe it's because there's more tolerance" So the group exists because they're tolerated? Hmm, again I don't think you're thinking through the logical repercussions of your argument.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2009 4:16 PM

I never said all homosexuals were pederasts, I said the gay community has a relatively high tolerance for pederasty.

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 5:02 PM

And the revolution never promoted pederasty either.

Except that it sort of did...

NAMBLA emerged from the tumultuous political atmosphere of the 1970s, particularly from the wing of the Gay Liberation movement that followed the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City.

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 5:49 PM

Anon, my reference to NAMBLA was not meant to show that all homosexuals are pedophiles, only that SOME homosexuals are pedophiles.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 29, 2009 6:33 PM

Jay,

My spam filter blocks comments that have too many URLs. Maybe you could break it up into multiple comments.

Posted by: Van Helsing at June 29, 2009 6:54 PM

Perhaps the commenters from the left can explain the disparity of press coverage and the lack of vocal outrage from the Duke community and mainstream media who were so quick to jump on the "white racists rapists" bandwagon in the previous case. The lack thereof might not indicate approval but where the hell is the disapproval?

Posted by: Gregory at June 29, 2009 8:04 PM

Just for the record, if this man is found guilty I have no problem if the CIA decides to try out new 'harsh interrogation' techniques on him. This is some seriously sick and twisted stuff.

But that is exactly why it is wrong to associate it with a whole group of people on less you have real proof.

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 8:37 PM

The problem is that because many priests are homosexual, it clearly indicates that being a priest causes people to become homosexual, so we have to get rid of the priest hood to get rid of the homosexuals to get rid of the pedophiles. It's just common sense, ya know?

No when homosexuals were allowed by the "tolerant" post 60's Church establishment to become priests it infuriated a lot of older priests including an grand uncle of mine and his priest friends, a fun bunch who were with the troops as priests or former combat soldiers themselves during WW II and Korea. They did not approve of the liberal changes after Vatican II to say the least. This Liberalism lead to gays to be allowed to become priests and the gay domination in seminaries hurt the recruitment of straight men into the priesthood and allowed even more gays into the priesthood in the 70's. That old uncle predicted the result would be kids being hurt at my dinner table back in the early 70's nearly a decade before his death and two decades before the scandel broke. Priest were expected to be role models for boys and were expected to spend time with boys who had no fathers and allowing gays in the Church around boys was stupid but anyone who objected in or out of the Church was called narrow minded. Most of the pedophile priests were a product of that liberal philosphy that dominated the Church at that time. Even when caught they were allowed to repent, receive counseling and allow back in the Community to molest again all in the name of liberal TOLERANCE and not to protect the Church as critics often state. Most of the victims were young male teens NOT young boys or girls who are the victims of pedophiles. That said it is clear this man is a pedophile pretending to be gay and the law enforcement and the media needs to check out his liberal private community that promotes its progessive view of child rearing to make sure there are no other families who share his hobby. This same kind of tolerance keeps the MSM and the Duke faculty from reporting and condemning this molester as they did the Duke lacrosse team. The Church has reformed the seminaries to limit gays from the priesthood and has seen the number of vocations increase in recent years. Too bad the same doesn't hold true for coaches, teachers and would be candidates for adoption who are gay and seek to spend a lot of time with kids.

Posted by: tired of liberal lies at June 29, 2009 9:58 PM

Hmmm. This makes me wonder... As a white Christian conservative heterosexual who clings to my Bible and my guns, would I be allowed by a silly letist social "worker" to adopt, say, a child orphaned by a homosexual West-hating terrorist Arab (take Yasser Assfat for example) or would I be considered too "radical"? But flaming homo-pedophiles are ENCOURAGED to adopt the children of ANY background?

Sorry silly liberal dipshits. I can make no sense of your silly hypocritical arguments other than your overt goal to indoctrinate your own hate towards those who are normal into the innocent.

How do I put this "gently"... Dump and roll in it, fools - people here don't take you seriously. We know what you are and what you stand for - and we don't like it. Expand your little brains around this little fact: This website exists to ridicule YOU and those like you so others can learn the truth of your stupidity.

Nitwits.

Posted by: Jimbo at June 29, 2009 11:43 PM

it is wrong to associate it with a whole group of people on less you have real proof.

Posted by: Brandon at June 29, 2009 8:37 PM

Unless they're white jocks who play lacrosse.

Posted by: V the K at June 30, 2009 5:20 AM

I've got a theory about homosexuals and pedophilia, and it goes like this. Homosexuality is a sexual disorder. Because it is a sexual disorder, it does not satisfy the person who engages in it, because the object of sexual gratification is not an object that can provide deep and meaningful satisfaction. David Morrison, a man who was involved in homosexual activism and lived a gay lifestyle for many years talked about the dirty little secret of the homosexual lifestyle--CRUSHING BOREDOM.

After the initial novelty wears off (and it wears off faster when you are dealing with some of the same sex) you feel the need to up the ante. That's why it is common to see homosexuals enter into a steady decline into greater and greater depravity, such as pedophilia, bestiality, copraphilia, S&M, etc.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 30, 2009 5:37 AM

You do see that with some homosexuals, but not all. I think it's more just two factors: 1. It's the politically correct dogma that the worst thing you can do is judge someone else's behavior (unless that behavior is conservative). 2. From the gay perspective, the people who condemn pedophilia and bestiality are the same people who disapprove of homosexuality in general. So there's a large number of gays who simply don't want "to judge" and who don't want to ever be on the side of us repressed "puritans."

Posted by: V the K at June 30, 2009 6:12 AM

The guy is sick and deserves whatever they give him, nobody would argue that


They will give him no more than 20 years and he will be out in no more than 15 years, free to carry on. Your scummy liberal already friends took care of that. Assholes.

Posted by: AlexD at June 30, 2009 6:34 AM

Why do you think Black people supported California's prop.8 in such large numbers?

Posted by: oldguy at June 30, 2009 7:08 AM

Just like climate change and evolution, conservatives here once again believe in their preconceived ideas and don't really care about the evidence.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 7:42 AM

What evidence, Brandon? All the evidence suggests that Lombard was into homosexuality, incest, and pedophilia. I don't buy the claim that his homosexual relationship was "just a front" either. A far better front would be to pretend to be a heterosexual if one is having sex with an adult just for a cover.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 30, 2009 7:54 AM

Just like climate change and evolution, conservatives here once again believe in their preconceived ideas and don't really care about the evidence.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 7:42 AM

Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by: V the K at June 30, 2009 8:05 AM

Pot, meet kettle.
Since it is impossible to prove a negative, the onus is on the accusers to present some real evidence that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. We have yet to see one scientific article appear.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 8:36 AM

Just like climate change and evolution

Really? Brandon? So we conservatives are ALL a bunch of creationists?

Looks like you believe in your preconceived ideas and don't really care about the evidence.

Posted by: Evil Otto at June 30, 2009 9:57 AM

What evidence, Brandon?

evidence that supports claims such as:

That's why it is common to see homosexuals enter into a steady decline into greater and greater depravity, such as pedophilia, bestiality, copraphilia, S&M, etc.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 9:59 AM

Brandon, Judith prefaced her entire comment with:

I've got a theory about homosexuals and pedophilia, and it goes like this...

In this case, it seems she is not using "theory" in the sense of being scientific theory, for obvious reasons.

I can imagine that it must be difficult, but try focusing less on being a stupid asshat and more on reading comprehension.

Posted by: cowlove at June 30, 2009 10:29 AM

JudithM……………well analyzed

THOTS:
…If homosexuality were built around love, the SF bath houses wouldn’t have lasted past noon of the first day.
…The only true common denominator here is not the love, nor the commitment, nor even, the child…it’s that thing hanging between the legs (sorry for the visual). Sometimes the truth hurts.
…JudithM…speaking of ‘hurts’…”Crushing Boredom”…..Were they referring to relationships or drilling? Probably should be “Painful Boredom”.
…In my opinion, they inordinately cherish their PP’s (Phallic Proclivities).
…Homosexuals have generally been treated fairly over the last couple of decades, but much like their passive-aggressive lifestyle, in general, the more rights they receive, the more antagonistic they get.
…As I mentioned late last week, the left-side ACLU defended NAMBLA—pro bono—in an effort to allow the group to continue to advertise their perverted smut (view of the world, actually) on the internet.
…An old ACLU attorney, left-side Supreme Court justice Ginsberg, has said she believes the age of consent should be 12-years old. Unrelated maybe, but if this kid was twelve instead of five, in her view, it’s OK.
…Left-side NAMBLA, whose slogan, “if they’re eight, it’s too late”, is probably filled with (let’s guess) 98% conservative Christian straight men who simply have a few residual potty training problems?
…This is why liberal thinkers may win an election, but they will never gain the moral high ground…..they’re incapable of beginning the climb. I’m not talking about the event, everybody will have their moral misjudgments (we’re all human, nobody’s perfect, sin is in us—take yer’ pick), I’m speaking of their way to 1…always try to rationalize away the overriding moral implications through excessive-compulsive moral equivalence, 2) hand wring and twist the issue until the perpetrator becomes the victim, or 3) simply look the other way. It’s a frickin’ formula!
…Hey, if you want a little less stress and a little more levity, scroll down to the bloody polar bear...read & insert additional comments…I’ll expand text later.

Posted by: AlphaMail at June 30, 2009 10:41 AM

In this case, it seems she is not using "theory" in the sense of being scientific theory, for obvious reasons.
I can imagine that it must be difficult, but try focusing less on being a stupid asshat and more on reading comprehension.

Try re-reading Judith's comment and you might notice that the sentence I quoted was not the theory, but the evidence used to back up the theory.

The moonbattery regularly criticizes the left for forming opinions without regard to evidence, but this thread is full of beliefs that are built entirely on conjecture and delicate feelings.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 11:11 AM

Brandon’s 7:42am comment…

“…conservatives believe in their preconceived ideas…..don’t care about evidence…”

This asinine comment is not unexpected. Historically, judges (who work within a system of ‘evidence)’, were overwhelmingly conservative. Liberals can try to rewrite history again, and they’ll stick by it, because ironically, they won’t look at the ‘evidence’. They say we aren’t a Christian nation, but they fail to admit the ‘fact’ that many of our forebears (early pilgrim leaders, and later, founding fathers) were preachers and dedicated clergy.

Sunday sermons were printed in their entirety in the papers, and posted completely in the public square, throughout the New England States, along with I might add, The Ten Commandments. Also, they wail about the separation of church and state, a policy written by Godly men, which was meant to keep government out of the church, NOT vice versa. Look how the left has torqued and twisted that great ideal!

Those judges, in my humble opinion, have slowly been replaced by a selfish, sick, “if it feels good, do it” progressive agenda, which deals less with administering justice, than it does with using the bench to further political goals.

Morality belongs to the left? And now science?
And now, the newest, latest idiocy coming from far-left butt-sucking radicals, is that since Christian conservatives don’t believe in evolution (which I don’t believe conflicts with my faith whatsoever) they therefore don’t believe in science (‘evidence’). How do these varmints multiply any frickin’ way?

Sherlock Holmes would say, "it's elementary Brandon"…Here are a few ‘devout’ Christians (this doesn’t begin to account for ‘everyday’ mainstream believers) who supported ‘evidence’. Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Pasteur, Fresnel, Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell, Carver, Newton, Ross, Eddington, Morse, Linnaeus, Bacon, Dalton, Mendel, and the Wright Brothers. Go find a hole and crawl in, you pompous, condescending piece of human detritus……(that's a scientific word).

Posted by: AlphaMail at June 30, 2009 12:04 PM

Brandon, there ARE scientific studies that support the contention that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children. Judith Reisman has written quite a lot on the subject. Eugene Abel wrote a paper that suggested that while the number of homosexual abusers represented a very small percentage of the total population, they abused a staggering number of victims. This was certainly the case with Fr. Paul Shanley, homosexual and NAMBLA founder, but there are plenty of non-priest pederasts that fit that profile.

The reason it's hard to find these studies and the reason people tend not to pursue them is because they know they will be harassed within an inch of their lives if their results show anything the least bit negative in terms of outcomes for those who live homosexual lifestyles.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 30, 2009 12:08 PM

I'm sorry you had to waste so much time on that post alpha. Take a look at what I wrote, "conservatives here". As in conservatives posting on the moonbattery. And yes, it is a generalization, I don't mean to indite every conservative who may have posted here.

asinine comment

Before you accuse someone of an asinine comment, you might want to carefully read what they wrote.

You also failed to write anything which addresses my main point, that the posters here have made their conclusions without the desire or need for evidence.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 12:19 PM

The reason it's hard to find these studies and the reason people tend not to pursue them is because they know they will be harassed within an inch of their lives if their results show anything the least bit negative in terms of outcomes for those who live homosexual lifestyles.

That hasn't stopped the hundreds of scientists who have been threatened or attacked by animal rights activists. I personally know a researcher whose office was fire bombed, another who had a protest group show up with mega phones at her house (when she has there with her daughter) and another who received anonymous threats by mail. None of them have stopped doing research with animals, and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of others like them.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 12:49 PM

From Dr. Reisman's webpage:

Sexual abuse of a male child by an adult male is defined as a homosexual assault. Homosexual males molest boy victims far more often than heterosexual males molest girl victims. Psychologist Eugene Abel reported homosexuals, "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater that the molestation of girls."

The challenge will be to find a paper that distinguishes between pedophiles who 'fixate' on children and homosexuals who are attracted to adults who also molest children.

From UC Davis:

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

Posted by: Brandon at June 30, 2009 1:15 PM

Brandon...

I don't spend long on a post, typically around ten minutes. Conservatives tend to split their energy between emotional responses and intellectual responses. Liberals tend to lean heavily on the emotional side. As a conservative, when you try to promote facts it takes longer (ie, an explanation takes longer than a guffaw). No data, just life experience. You are a bit different for a liberal. Having said that I disagree with your liberal views but that's supposed to be what freedom is all about.

I get really frustrated when people don't connect dots--dots being evidence. I hate stupidity! Ignorance is accepted because ignorant people don't always have all the facts. But stupidity is when they have all the facts (dots) but refuse, for whatever reason, to connect them. You base a lot of stuff on studies, and that's great, but sometimes things are obvious without a study. Experience and common sense can show us that.

I get frustrated with some of your political assessments because I feel you're being, well...stupid. Look, you're a smart guy, and you know it. I think the people around here just think you nitpick and cherry-pick a little (when you could actually be more fair and agreeable), and you are a tad left-bias even when its obvious that's not in the mix.

Most of the stuff I blog comes off the top of my head, I don't try and run for facts. Don't know why, just is. Go to Bing and look at the photo. I've done that. 'Exactly' that! My life experiences are so varied and scary it borders on the goofy. But from a Christian point of view it should be normal. We call them blessings, not rights (no insinuation). When you believe in blessings instead of rights, the world opens up.

Also, in the research center in Beaverton, Oregon (near Nike) where they experiment on monkeys, I think someone figured the Dem/Rep proportion was about even.

Posted by: AlphaMail at June 30, 2009 1:32 PM

Brandon...

"the challenge will be to find a paper...."

Stop already......pleeeeeze. Stop with the papers, stop with the studies. Think about the great "Transactional Analysis" study and the resulting book, "I'm OK, you're OK" by Dr. George Harris. It was the liberal heartbeat of the early 70's. Georgie Boy blew his blathering brains out. Guess it should have been called, "You're OK, I'm not". Life isn't just a study for heaven sakes. What if the study was written by the guy who pimped his kid? What do YOU think? What's inside YOUR head? What's YOUR experience? What do YOU think should be the norm? Evidence is essential everyone knows it. But how many papers do you have to read to see the DNA?..........I'm outta here........later

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2009 1:55 PM

Before I head out for the sunny day.


JudithM.....best breathtaking sentence without a comma in over a year...kudos...filled with smarts too.

Brandon....if you wanna politic, I'm ready. I found some space on the "Moonbats Suppress their Child's Gender" entry, so I put something on there that I put together yesterday out of past snippets. You might like the catchy title--it might be right up you alley (pun possibly intended).

Posted by: AlphaMail at June 30, 2009 2:22 PM

WTF does this have to do with libeals? I'd strangle this guy myself.

If, as I suspect, your point is that this has something to do with him being gay, let me remind you: straight people commit horrible crimes against kids every day, bigots.

You guys are such homos for your pre-occupation with the gays. It really can't be said enough.

Posted by: brs at June 30, 2009 7:50 PM

WTF does this have to do with libeals? I'd strangle this guy myself.

If, as I suspect, your point is that this has something to do with him being gay, let me remind you: straight people commit horrible crimes against kids every day, bigots.

You guys are such homos for your pre-occupation with the gays. It really can't be said enough.

Posted by: brs at June 30, 2009 7:56 PM

LOAL BRS CALLIN PEEPS HOMOS UR SUCH A HOMO DUDE TOTALLY>>>!!!111one!!!eleventy.

Posted by: Typical Retard at July 1, 2009 6:11 AM

I'm familiar with UC Davis, Brandon. That's the home of Gregory Herek, renowned homosexual and homosexual lifestyle apologist. I didn't bother to look up the quote to see if it was one of his, but it sure sounds like it.

That's another one of the problems I've seen with research in this area. Almost all of the research done by homosexuals seems to support that homosexuality has no downside. As someone who attended the funeral of a young homosexual recently, I can tell you firsthand that simply isn't the case.

Posted by: Judith M. at July 1, 2009 6:32 AM

BRS, if the MSM reported every single instance of homosexual abuse, dwelling on it for YEARS, like they did with the homosexual ephebophilia within the Catholic Church, I think the world would have a much more realistic understanding of who was molesting whom. As it stands, there will be a news blackout on this repulsive case because the folks in the newsrooms who make such decisions don't want to dwell as such unseemly behavior when it's committed by one of their heroes.

Posted by: Judith M. at July 1, 2009 6:54 AM

It is unfortunate that people are immediately focused on the fact that this guy is gay. It doesn't make any difference if he is straight or gay- he is a pedophile. He sexually abuses children. Straight people sexually abuse their children and pimp them out for others to abuse and I am sure that other gay individuals and couples have done it in the past. We need to be finding more effective ways to protect children- to teach teachers- doctors-neighbors- how to recognize signs of sexual and other abuse. It is really sickening what happens to kids.

Posted by: Norah at July 1, 2009 12:11 PM

"If homosexuality were built around love, the SF bath houses wouldn’t have lasted past noon of the first day."

And what about the straight swinger and orgy clubs that abound? There must be no love among straight folks if these are still flourishing.

"After the initial novelty wears off ... you feel the need to up the ante."

Up the ante with bestiality, huh? Sex with corpses? That is definitely betting the whole house and its disgusting that you think this is a natural progression. THere are gay folks all around you, believe it or not, and I bet none of them do these things you're referring to.


Judith, Brandon's my reference to the LDS was not meant to show that all heterosexuals are pedophiles, only that SOME heterosexuals are pedophiles

"separation of church and state, a policy written by Godly men, which was meant to keep government out of the church, NOT vice versa"

That's just plain old wrong. I hope you know that. Its a wall that's supposed to keep if from going either direction, because as may seem clear to you if you think it through, if the government becomes invested with religion, its only half a step away from prescribing a state religion.


Kudos to Norah and brs for speaking up.


Posted by: Anonymous at July 1, 2009 3:37 PM

We certainly wouldn't want to look at the facts to determine whether there is a correlation between homosexual behavior and an elevated risk for pederasty/homosexual pedophilia. That might make it easier to prevent such abuse, and if we prevented it, there'd be fewer homosexuals voting Democratic.

Posted by: James Carville at July 1, 2009 8:00 PM

What does a sick child molestor and pimp have to do with me because I happen to be gay?

Am I responsible for the behavior of everyone else on the planet b/c I am gay?

Posted by: Lee at July 5, 2009 8:48 AM

blah blah blah. just because a person is 'gay' doesn't mean he's a 'liberal'. Conservatives/Republicans are the worst repressed cases. He could be a Republican for all you know. Look at all those gay Republican politicians that were busted lately!

Posted by: mark baker at July 11, 2009 9:42 PM


I am a conservative Republican, and I need say that people should be so extremist. Yes, I am going to give my opinion, even though it's not worth any more or any less than all the other opinions being posted. I will not generalize. I don't believe you can, or should, apply the characteristics of one situation to all other people who fall under the same demographic. That's not being analytical. It's the same way tourists have this mindset that ALL Americans are blonde and white and light eyed. No, I have black hair and brown eyes, but I am still American. What this man did was horrible, there is no question. But, you are all trying to punish everyone who is gay, off of this one action, which not all gay people agree with. Which is why those that want to have relations with children are not allowed to march, because those qualities are not what constitute being a homosexual, the same way that a man wanting sexual relations with a young girl does not constitute being a heterosexual, that’s pedophilia, which I assume was the point trying to be made earlier. This association that all gay’s are more prone to being pedophiles was ridiculous. It’s the same thing that people try to do to people in the south, when they say all southerners are hicks, or rednecks, because some drive trucks, or for the other many reasons why they are termed those disrespectful and unnecessary names.
Now, I am gay. I am a conservative Republican who happens to be gay. I am not a pedophile. Neither was I ever molested as a child by any male relatives or my religious leader, or by any other male adult. I had a strong family, with strong family values, who instilled in me the qualities I would need in my life to be a strong, responsible and hardworking man, which I am today. I have never molested a child, nor do I want to, or plan to. I am not psychologically disturbed, nor do I have a mental disorder or sexual disorder for that note – since that was so ignorantly stated earlier. I have many heterosexual and homosexual friends. None have ever molested a child, and they all are hardworking citizens.
Now, I do not parade around, or really do much to promote awareness of the REAL homosexual lifestyle. Unfortunately, most people, whether you are conservative or liberal, possess the notion that all homosexuals want to go out and party all night, and have unending sex with each other. Of course, these would be the ignorant. They would be the people who believe that being gay refers only to the sexual aspect of a relationship. They don’t believe love, or a real, honest human bond has anything to do with homosexuality. Why? Because when you hear the word homosexual, or gay, the only thing you can picture in your head is the molester. That’s all you know! But, that’s because that’s all you choose to know. You don’t see the man working every day, trying to be a good law abiding citizen. You don’t see the son, who visits his parents every day, and remembers their birthdays, mother’s day, or Christmas. You do not see the person who tries to be a good role model for his/her niece and nephew, only because they are not allowed to be a parent themselves. You omit all of this, because it’s easier for you to hate and attack the molester, the ideal gay individual. This issue has nothing to do about being Republican or Democratic, and unfortunately most homosexuals are Democrats because some Republicans, the zealots, want to pass laws which reduce their rights as American citizens. The ones who are Republicans who want a political career remain closeted. Not all Republicans hate the gays, and not all gays are perverts. We shouldn’t generalize, or stereotype, that’s always wrong. I was born gay, the same way people are born straight, or bi. There was never a point in my life where I was confused, I always knew. And when I asked my friends, the only time they felt they were confused was when they tried to please everyone else in their lives, except themselves. Those hear who truly have this deep dislike for the homosexual need to try and meet some, because it’s apparent you know very few, if any, and if you do know some, that you take time to really get to know them, as individuals, not as a group, so that you can figure out what gay is really all about. I hope you won’t ridicule my words, and will consider some of the things I have said. I have attacked one side more than the other, because I feel that side was more belligerent than the latter. Regardless, I hope I have helped you realize that you shouldn’t use one incident to try and justify your opinions of the whole, because that opinion will always be false, I and all of my homosexual friends, who are Christian and all College bred, are proof of this. Those promiscuous party nuts are a minority within the gay community; it is just unfortunate that the media tends to be drawn more towards them than us professional, ethically correct gays. Perhaps the media should be less judgmental, or perhaps people shouldn’t believe all they hear on the news, and should try to discover the truth themselves, to the point that it is possible.
Lastly, I want to mention that, yes, it is unfortunate that there are so many children have been molested by priests and such. But, there are teachers who have sex with their students. When I was in high school a teacher had a baby with one of her students. She later went on to have a website of her and her former student having sex, who she continued to see after he graduated. Of course, not all heterosexual women are “sluts” and perverts, but there is a minority. The same way there are a minority of gay perverts, and straight perverts, who look at their daughters when coming out of the shower, or in their cheerleading outfits. Perverts are in a class of their own, and are not part of the normal sexual community, whether gay or straight. Someone who molests is sick, but if you are in a faithful relationship, whether you are in a gay or straight relationship, there is no psychological disorder, or sexual disorder.
I am gay, but there is more to me than just that title. I am also a student, a son, an uncle, a friend, a mentor, a neighbor, and most importantly, a HUMAN, a person. I have rights, and I have expectation of myself and others. I am a decent person, and a respectful person, with values and morals. If all of that is omitted, just because I am also gay, then shame on you who omits them. At that point, I am no longer the issue, your blinding hate is.

Posted by: Just a guy at August 12, 2009 7:47 PM