Sunday, October 4, 2009

Why the Left Defends Pedophiles...

With the arrest of Hollywood pederast Roman Polanski, defending pedophilia is back en vogue.

Whoopi Goldberg, usually somewhat more sensible on most matters, said, “..It wasn’t really rape, rape...”

Actually it was indeed “RAPE, RAPE” and even worse, it was pedophilia.
The victim cried “No,” and that's AFTER the predator had plied her with drugs and alcohol...and oh yeah, SHE WAS JUST THIRTEEN YEARS OLD! Roman Polanski was 43 y/o at the time. He SHOULD be serving a life sentence.

Statutory rape only applies to consensual sex between an adult (over 18 y/o) and an “under-aged partner” (14 y/o up to 18 y/o)...UNDER 14 years of age it’s pedophilia, as the victims in such cases are rightly considered CHILDREN.

But this is nothing new, back when this case occurred, over three decades ago, movie mogul Jack Warner reportedly said, “This was an accident that could’ve happened to anyone.” Enough said about that...the statement clearly speaks for itself.

And Polanski isn’t the only pederast the Left has embraced and even lionized the likes of Woody Allen and Michael Jackson, even though the latter always seemed guilty of the less abominable offense of “inappropriate dealings with juveniles.”

For a long time now the ACLU has defended pedophiles and pederast organizations.

Back in 2004 Deroy Murdock rote, “...the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.

“The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

“Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

“So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?

“Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.”

“Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.”

“As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

“However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."

“NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

“Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."
"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

“The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

“Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

“The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.

“Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers.

“The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.

“This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.

“Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.

“San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.

“The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.”

All the Polanski case shows is just how complicit Hollywood has been with the far-Left’s pro-pederast agenda.
But WHY?
Why does the Left defend and protect pedophiles and bristle at things like online pedophile stings and laws that target pedophiles?

Perhaps because there have always been a far greater number of pedophiles in government than in the general public.

Last April, the Democrats sure were very touchy on the subject!

“If we're going to discard the crucial concept of equality before the law for the sake of "hate crimes" legislation, why not punish hate crimes against our troops?” repeated an outraged Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) to her questioner, her answer was that comparing abused military personnel to "real victims" like blacks and homosexuals is "belittling to those who actually need these special protections, the real victims in our society.”

Democrats claimed that their Bill did not and would not defend pedophiles under its “sexual orientation” clause, but when Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King offered an amendment that would have barred pedophiles from receiving special protection under the hate crimes bill. The amendment was defeated along a Party-line vote 13-10. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin [D-WI] called the amendment was "unnecessary and inflammatory."

In the wake of that controversy, Media Matters went into overdrive to provide its typical slimey cover for its Leftist overlords. “Discussing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which defines as a federal crime certain acts of violence or attempted violence "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person," Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Bill Hemmer, and The Fox Nation, have all recently advanced the false claim that House Democrats voted to "protect" or "defend" pedophiles by voting against an amendment to the bill by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) stating that "the term 'sexual orientation' shall not include pedophilia."* In fact, as Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) noted during an April 23 House Judiciary Committee hearing, the term "sexual orientation" is already defined by federal statute as applying only to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality," thereby excluding pedophiles, who engage in nonconsensual sexual relationships with children. (THAT'S clearly UNTRUE! As Rep Tammy Baldwin has acknowledged that "sexual orientation is NOT defined in the Bill," which opens the door to pedophile protections) In providing her reasons for opposing King's amendment, Baldwin said that it "is unnecessary and, I would add, inflammatory in terms of insinuations."

See that?

While acknowledging that the Democrats (EVERY Democrat) voted against Rep. King’s common sense amendment, that would merely make sure that at no time could this Bill be used to protect pedophiles in any case, they blatantly LIED in claiming that Fox News mis-represented that position.


Rep. Steven King’s amendment would’ve merely made sure this Bill could never be construed to protect pedophiles and EVERY Democrat on that Committee chose to vote AGAINST that!

According to Rep. King, "This panel - this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill - either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation."

Openly lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) responded to King by noting that gender identity is defined in the bill as "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics," but acknowledged that sexual orientation is not defined in the legislation.

The primary reason that so many Leftists in government defend pedophilia, other than self-protection, is that at heart, they abhor America's traditional morality, standards and mores and are actively seeking to eradicate those as part of their pathway to their brave new world.


Joie said...

I hope the Curly's and their attorney are wildly successful, and Polanski needs to go to jail and all the $$$ he made while he lived a life of luxury in exile needs to be taken away from him and put into a fund to help families of victims of pedophilia to put the hurt on groups like NAMBLA and the ACLU.
Great post!

JMK said...

I agree with those sentiments Joie.

There shouldn't even be a group like NAMBLA and the ACLU has no business defending a group dedicated to spreading and attempting to normalize one of the most vile forms of criminality.

Seane-Anna said...

You're right, JMK. Leftists do protect pedophiles because, at heart, they hate America's traditional morality, but you left out two important details. 1. Leftists hate America's traditional morality because it's Bible-based and the Left is virulently Christophobic. 2. Hatred of traditional morality, not devotion to civil rights, is the real driving force behind the Left's support for gay rights. Support for gay rights and support for pedophilia are two points on the Left's anti-morality continuum. That's not politically correct to say, but it's true.

JMK said...

The Left IS actually anti-JUDEO-CHRISTIAN, Seane-Anna.

The far-Left is steeped in a virulent anti-Semitism. That's all to evident today, consider this recent statement by Honduran Leftist and ardent Zelaya supporter, David Romero-Ellner;

“Sometimes I ask myself if Hitler wasn’t right to finish with that race, through the famous holocaust, because if there are people who are harmful to this country, they are the Jews, the Isaelites.” (David Romero Ellner, Executive Director of Radio Globo, Honduras Sept 25, 2009)

Ironically enough, Romero-Ellner began his political career as a radical activist and one of the founders of the far-Left People’s Revolutionary Union.

He’s also a convicted incest-pedophile, who did some jail time for sexually molesting his own daughter - a penchant, for whatever reasons, not at all atypical of the Leftist persona.

Astoundingly enough, Mr. Romero-Ellner’s comments merely followed up Manuel Zelaya’s own charge that he was being “subjected to high-frequency radiation” from outside the Brazilian Embassy where he was staying, and blaming “Israeli mercenaries” for his travails.

Worse still, for America’s Zelaya supporters, is the facts laid out by New York District Attorney General, Robert Morgenthau, who recently spoke at the Brookings Institute acknowledging that, “Iran and Venezuela are beyond the courtship phase. We know they are creating a cozy financial, political and military partnership and that BOTH countries have strong ties to Hezzbolah and Hamas.”

You know why the Left reviles the Jews? Why Hitler, Stalin and ALL leading Leftists to this day despise the Jews, and by extension any group that holds to those Biblical (Judeo-Christian) principles?

Because the Jews, more than any other group, represent the commercial and merchant class...from their ranks have sprung the most ardent of Capitalists. The Jews are, as more than one Leftist has lamented, “incorrigibly Capitalistic.”

That’s the reason Hitler hated them and it’s the same reason ALL Leftists hate the Jews. Ironically enough, it can be said without any exaggeration that “the Left is incorrigibly anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pro-pedophile."

Your own assessment is largely correct.

American Ideas Click Here!