Mike Adams : Little Boy Blue Devil - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/06/28/little_boy_blue_devil?page=full&comments=true)

Man if this story is correct the faculty at Duke should be getting ready to issue another statement signed by 88 of the faculty members like they did when they tried to hang the LaCrosse team. Somehow I doubt that will happen, because this guy is faculty.One of the team of liberal faculty.

In fact this guy is associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy.
His health policy for his adopted 5 yeard old son is to have sex with the child and then pimp him out over the internet.

*****The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement. ****

This paragraph if true should start the pot boiling. One has to wonder why the Associated Press forgot to mention that.

I would bet we wont hear much from the crew of faculty that tried to hang the white Lacrosse players.

If this is true, it is awful. Makes me sick to read it.

This is :bs:

No effing way.

Jesse Jackson, Al; Sharpton and others were quick to jump on the Duke scandal when the white boys were accused of raping a stripper. Where are they now. here we have a white homosexual professor and faculty member who adopted a black child molested it and offered the child to other freaks. A story 20 times as horrible as the first. A story where I would go to help them lynch this character myself. Yet we hear nothing from them.

Is it because it is not politically correct to protest homosexual behavior, pedophilia, or liberal teachers? Where are you Jesse? How about this crap Al? How about this story National Media?

My guess is that it doesnt fit their agenda.

The AP was wrong not to even mention the facts of race or homosexuality, but it's pretty obvious that after reading that column, that Mr. Adams(The author) is a bigot. It's a sad day, and a failing of the American educational systems, when educated men and women such as Adams feel the need to single out aspects of a person's lifestyle as if that one single thing explains why they commited a horrendous act.

I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends, who are perfectly sane and live happy, healthy lives without the thought of raping or molesting children, or anyone else for that matter. This is not to say that no gay or lesbian has ever or would ever do such a thing, but to prosecute the ENTIRE gay population for one sick pervert's actions would be like saying that the hate crimes committed by members of the KKK or other white supremicist groups should be a reflection on all whites around the world.

Those of us who are white but not members of the KKK would not want that kind of judgement passed on us when we are innocent of the crimes, and people should be taking that same stance when reading columns like this. Mr. Adams did a good thing by bringing the facts to light. HOWEVER, his manner of doing so is beyond questionable. He has just as much of an agenda as those who were trying to cover the facts up, except that his mission, which seems to be to prosecute gays, was helped by bringing out the facts.

I'd be the first in line to say that if there is indeed proof of what the accused was doing to that child, that he should be punished severely, but I do not think that his actions should be used to judge the rest of the gay community. Look at the statistics, there are heterosexuals that adopt and/or foster and hurt the children in their care, but you do not see that being cast as a judgement on those who do well by the children entrusted to them. The worst that has happened is that the screening of potential adoptive parents has been heightened and become more rigorous, more intensive, for the sake of protecting the children.

[QUOTE=Irish_Eyes;3833306]The AP was wrong not to even mention the facts of race or homosexuality, but it's pretty obvious that after reading that column, that Mr. Adams(The author) is a bigot. It's a sad day, and a failing of the American educational systems, when educated men and women such as Adams feel the need to single out aspects of a person's lifestyle as if that one single thing explains why they commited a horrendous act.

I didnt see where in the article Mr Adams made a blanket accusation against all gays, .

However that one single aspect of this mans life appears to have a basic connection with what he did and what he planned to do with this kid.

I didnt see where in the article Mr Adams made a blanket accusation against all gays, .

However that one single aspect of this mans life appears to have a basic connection with what he did and what he planned to do with this kid.

If that were true then why hide it from his partner? Wouldn't his partner be into it?
The answer is of course not. I know some people want to believe that pedophilia and homosexuality go hand and hand but an adult man molesting a pre pubescent boy has as much to do with homosexuality as an adult man molesting a pre pubescent girl has to do with heterosexuality. In a sense, not a thing.


DISCLAIMER: I am not advocating at all sex with minors. I am just trying to differentiate between a grown man being attracted to a 16 year old who looks like an adult vs a 10 year old child. I do not believe it is acceptable for the grown adult to have a sexual relationship with the 16 year old but I would not think he was a pedophile because he found her attractive.

I didnt see where in the article Mr Adams made a blanket accusation against all gays, .

However that one single aspect of this mans life appears to have a basic connection with what he did and what he planned to do with this kid.

If you didn't see the attack on gays, then you obviously didn't read the entire article(or did and were not paying attention), so I'll point out where he made being against gays so obvious.

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin.

Perhaps the coalition he was speaking of was the coalition of pedophiles. Do you support them?

Do you support Nambla? I certainly support breaking up the Nambla coalition. Perhaps you dont.

I don't honestly feel one way or the other toward NAMBLA, as long as they are not breaking any laws, which they are not.

I'm not really sure how you're relating a case like this to them, but just for the record, these are from their website:

NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts.

and that is does not:
engage in any activities that violate the law [or] advocate that anyone else should [violate the law]."

It is safe to say that a five year old would not be considered an appropriate partner, even by NAMBLA, so why exactly are you trying to bring them into this?

Mike Adams : Little Boy Blue Devil - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/06/28/little_boy_blue_devil?page=full&comments=true)

.

I had started this here.....

http://forums.somd.com/news-current-events/182679-you-paying-pedophile-s-duke-salary.html#post3832202

I don't honestly feel one way or the other toward NAMBLA, as long as they are not breaking any laws, which they are not.

I'm not really sure how you're relating a case like this to them, but just for the record, these are from their website:



and that is does not:


It is safe to say that a five year old would not be considered an appropriate partner, even by NAMBLA, so why exactly are you trying to bring them into this?

You dont feel one way or the other about NAMBLA .

I think we understand your position. Thank you for your comment.

YouTube - Gay Duke University Official Molested Black Adopted Son, Pimped son to Cop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMftwQYgWhE&feature=channel_page)

I don't honestly feel one way or the other toward NAMBLA, as long as they are not breaking any laws, which they are not.

I'm not really sure how you're relating a case like this to them, but just for the record, these are from their website:



and that is does not:


It is safe to say that a five year old would not be considered an appropriate partner, even by NAMBLA, so why exactly are you trying to bring them into this?

Uh...Man Boy Love...doesn't apply to only adults. Just an FYI. They can write a disclaimer, but that organization promotes sex between young male children and adult males. Perhaps you didn't realize exactly what this organization represents.

Something Amiss in Indigo Creek Trail North Carolina: Echoes of Deliverance in a Southern Gay Commune? - RPVNetwork (http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/something-amiss-in-indigo)

The silence is deafening, because it isnt a part of the political homosexual agenda..


This guy was a part of a gay commune that has 20 other kids of color in it.

Still no response from Jesse or Al.

I don't honestly feel one way or the other toward NAMBLA, as long as they are not breaking any laws, which they are not.

I'm not really sure how you're relating a case like this to them, but just for the record, these are from their website:



and that is does not:


It is safe to say that a five year old would not be considered an appropriate partner, even by NAMBLA, so why exactly are you trying to bring them into this?




Whoa. Did a research report on NAMBLA. Members have entire pages devoted to how to gain the trust of small children, and they actively advocate for the removal of laws of consent. And if you think they are doing that, but not actively participating in harming children, you are naïve.

And just for the record, they are vested supporters of the gay rights movement, because it advances their own agenda. Not that that alone discredits the movement, but be aware the link is there. Which I believe is why they are relevant, and perhaps why the auther mentioned his sexuality.

Whoa. Did a research report on NAMBLA. Members have entire pages devoted to how to gain the trust of small children, and they actively advocate for the removal of laws of consent. And if you think they are doing that, but not actively participating in harming children, you are naïve.

And just for the record, they are vested supporters of the gay rights movement, because it advances their own agenda. Not that that alone discredits the movement, but be aware the link is there. Which I believe is why they are relevant, and perhaps why the auther mentioned his sexuality.

See that is what I will never understand. I have never heard a reasonable (IMO) argument (and I have probably heard all of them) as to how protecting the rights of consenting adults has anything to do with the molestation of children.
It all hinges on the ability to enter a legal contract (state recognized marriage being the specific legal contract to which I am referring). Children cannot enter into legal contracts, animals cannot enter into legal contracts. So they have as much to do with homosexual marriage as they do heterosexual marriage, meaning nothing.
Allowing homosexuals to enter into the contract of state recognized marriage is NOT the same thing as the laws regarding age of consent.

Slippery slope. Once you allow for anything other than one man, one woman, you open up avenues for other types of "alternate" lifestyles. Its simple really. Homosexuals argue that they are born that way, that it is natural, and doesn't hurt anyone etc...and so, they advance their agenda and gain the right to marry. Pedophiles have the EXACT same arguments. That they are born like that, that its natural. That the age of reason is 6 and a child that age should be allowed to "be happy, and express love just like anyone else." Homosexuality used to be seen as a mental disorder many years ago, much as pedophilia is today. How long before interest groups and "scientific" studies come out in support, ( as they did for homosexuality) and we start the whole deal over again? I believe that is why many favor a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between one man and one woman...to end the slope.
They have already started. NAMBLA has a page linking to research that has been done, showing that most children who are molested don't show long term ill effect, and many other studies they have twisted to their own benefit....its a long road to go down...don't think it could happen? Ask your parents or grandparents if they ever thought there would be gay sitcoms or gay marriage.

Slippery slope. Once you allow for anything other than one man, one woman, you open up avenues for other types of "alternate" lifestyles. Its simple really. Homosexuals argue that they are born that way, that it is natural, and doesn't hurt anyone etc...and so, they advance their agenda and gain the right to marry. Pedophiles have the EXACT same arguments. That they are born like that, that its natural. That the age of reason is 6 and a child that age should be allowed to "be happy, and express love just like anyone else." Homosexuality used to be seen as a mental disorder many years ago, much as pedophilia is today. How long before interest groups and "scientific" studies come out in support, ( as they did for homosexuality) and we start the whole deal over again? I believe that is why many favor a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between one man and one woman...to end the slope.
They have already started. NAMBLA has a page linking to research that has been done, showing that most children who are molested don't show long term ill effect, and many other studies they have twisted to their own benefit....its a long road to go down...don't think it could happen? Ask your parents or grandparents if they ever thought there would be gay sitcoms or gay marriage.

Using the whole "born that way" argument, the slippery slope actually starts with heterosexuals since it can be easily argued that heterosexuals are born that way. So I guess we should constitutionally outlaw all state recognized marriages then? Constitutionally speaking we cannot deny, IMO, certain law abiding adults rights that other have.
Perverts arguing that gays getting married means they can too has no merit at all. This again is because of the following question-- how does states allowing two consenting adults the right to enter into a legal contract change, in anyway way at all, age of consent laws?
No one with any common sense at all would believe that a 6 year old child, or even a 12 year old, has the mental ability to understand and enter into a legal contract of marriage.

Using the whole "born that way" argument, the slippery slope actually starts with heterosexuals since it can be easily argued that heterosexuals are born that way. So I guess we should constitutionally outlaw all state recognized marriages then? Constitutionally speaking we cannot deny, IMO, certain law abiding adults rights that other have.
Perverts arguing that gays getting married means they can too has no merit at all. This again is because of the following question-- how does states allowing two consenting adults the right to enter into a legal contract change, in anyway way at all, age of consent laws?
No one with any common sense at all would believe that a 6 year old child, or even a 12 year old, has the mental ability to understand and enter into a legal contract of marriage.

I would like to add to this while NOT common sense in general, I do believe that the majority of people in this country have strong, if not overly ridiculous, notion for protecting children.

I would like to add to this while NOT common sense in general, I do believe that the majority of people in this country have strong, if not overly ridiculous, notion for protecting children.

Overly ridiculous? Wow. Why do you say that? Based on the context provided by this thread, that statement is a wee disturbing at face value.

Overly ridiculous? Wow. Why do you say that? Based on the context provided by this thread, that statement is a wee disturbing at face value.

I mean how we treat children, in general, like they need to be wrapped in bubble wrap. It is like we took things that did need to be done and went way overboard. Of course I would rather be safe that sorry in protecting children from predators in terms of this topic specifically.

I mean how we treat children, in general, like they need to be wrapped in bubble wrap. It is like we took things that did need to be done and went way overboard. Of course I would rather be safe that sorry in protecting children from predators in terms of this topic specifically.


Thank you for that clarification.