Gay pedophile is student body president at California college

So you think one man means gay rights and NAMBLA walk hand in hand? lol

proven lie

 

Just saying Harvey Milk wasn't preying on teen boys on drugs is a "proven lie" doesn't make it so. It's documented what he did by his accredited gay journalist friend.

No, it's not just the "one man" as you're purposefully and shamefully trying to minimize it to be. Really, how dishonest of you. It is the significance of Harry Hay the NAMBLA supporter. Because Harry Hay was the original guru of the "gay rights movement". He was followed by and to present day, another child predator, Harvey Milk who the GLBT community at large uphold as their current icon. And you're insisting that I'm lying about his predation of teen boys on drugs means you also are aplogizing and covering for him. Totally shameful. Just unforgivably shameful in light of the fact that so many new young boys are coming down with HIV in exponential growth against the "born that way" demographic. All concurrent with the 'gay is cool' media blitz and the suppression of AIDS awareness alongside it..

Really, how can you sleep at night?

 

proven lie

 

correct. the book you love to quote makes it a lie.

and it doesn't say what you say it does.

So you think one man means gay rights and NAMBLA walk hand in hand? lol

proven lie

no, I'm just pointing out your lies.

I know. You should really stop lying about milk.

I sleep just fine. Pointing out your lies is just a hobby

 

What the hell are you talking about? "Obama just wasn't thinking"... stop making excuses for him! He knew exactly what he was appointing for the 'safe' school czar. A queer who was promoting his book "Queering the Elementary", talking to teens about how to 'fist' your gay partner correctly, etc, etc...... wake up! Congress knew what Jennings is and they asked Obumma a couple times to not assign Jennings to that position and he just ignored them, wanting the queer in charge of the country's schools and he was!

For anyone to think Obama isn't 'aware' of someone's background, doesn't know that a queer he put in charge of the schools idolizes someone like Harry Hay or doesn't really think about it is living in LaLaLand....... for gawd's sake!

Obama said it himself in his book "I choose my friends/associates very carefully"... and he showed his choice w/racist Rev Wright, world-renowned racist Louis, Farrakhen, home grown terrorist Bill Ayers and the list goes on and on...... and Kevin Jennings was his choice b/c he knew exactly what he was - a queer pushing homosexuality at the school kids........

 

OK OK! Easy there Hummingbird! You probably are right. I just didn't want to think that the box I checked for president in the Fall of last year as "other than the GOP" was such a terrible mistake. I'm beginning to think Obama is just a narcissist playboy who is just as corrupt as Bush or Cheney. But the writing is on the wall as they say.

And if I have to hear one more Dr. King-Voice-Imitating Singsong speeches from Obama I think I might projectile-vomit. The GOP tells him to bend over and Obama's reply is "how far"?

That's why I wanted Hillary. My pet theory is the GOP wanted the Obama nomination in 2008 because 1. They're racist and believe "nobody will elect a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) [their words]" and failing that 2. The GOP knew Obama had so many skeletons in his closet and was so spineless that they could blackmail/bribe him into doing anything they wanted.

I wish my pet theories were wrong sometimes. Hillary had already been vetted and combed over repeatedly for flaws. She would've been formidable. This country would be better today without a doubt. But the GOP always gets what it wants. Makes you want to turn the head of that snake over to the Hague...

BTW, what are the roots of this Jennings character Hummingbird? What's his bio, his genesis and who did he associate with back in the day? Why didn't Obama check into that sooner?

 

WHUT? Again, Obama knew about Jennings and what he stood for. Presidents don't just pick a name out of a hat to appoint to his Cabinet/Administration... he KNOWS all about that person, what they represent and how that person will help and promote his agenda! It's a carefully tho't over process that every president goes thru in choosing who he wants to work for him and there's nothing about that person that the president isn't aware of.....

Kevin Jennings and his life is all over the internet....

Hillary? I know politicians lie, but when they tell such stupid lies like her telling how she got her NAME, which was proven to be a stupid lie b/c the mountain climber she said she was named after didn't climb the mountain until 6 yrs AFTER she was born......

She 'had to dodge sniper bullets when she & Chelsea went to Bosnia".. Yeah, you bet. After she told that lie, a video was shown of her arriving in Bosnia w/a big smile on her face, walking freely and not a bullet in sight.....not to mention the fact that she insulted the military by implying they weren't competent enuf to protect the FL and FD...

If someone is such a pathological liar that they would lie about trivial things like how she got her name and doesn't have the brains to realize that her claim could easily be checked out... can you just imagine the whoppers she'd tell if she was in the WH?

 

it's called hiding in plain sight. Democrats know the media won't report so they can appoint all the radicals they wish

 

And what would you call Dick Cheney? A soft and wise-hearted conservative?

Ha! He is undoubtedly behind the silence at Fox News about the gay marriage issue...since one of his daughters is a lesbian. How's that for radical?

 

Try to stay focused. The topic is not about Cheney and his daughter.

Why do you liberals always try to pull that? You don't like the way a conversation is going, so you try to derail it to something/someone else.

Did you read up on Kevin Jennings and learn more about what Obama forced on the school kids?

 

I don't know what everyone is arguing about in this thread. Not one post has indicated that what this man did was acceptable, and not disgusting. And not just because it was done to a boy - kidnapping and sexually molesting any young child is a totally incomprehensible, not to mention reprehensible, act, and the perpetrator should have gone to prison for a long time.

The OP was correct to draw our attention to the lightness of his sentence, but I was surprised at the clumsy methods he employed and said so. I also disagree with extending the culpability of every crime committed by a homosexual to the entire homosexual community, as much as I would disagree with extending the blame for every heterosexual rape to me as a member of the heterosexual community, or culpability for every crime committed by a Muslim or black person being shared by those communities.

Be that as it may, this matter has nothing to do with party politics, homosexuality, or heterosexuality (the child could easily have been a young girl). It was a perverted criminal act, which was not, IMO, and dependent upon the known facts, punished appropriately. To that extent, I share the OP's concern. But to extend the discussion to various US politicians, Harvey Milk, etc. and thence to personal abuse of other members here, seems totally unnecessary, and counter-productive to me.

The other issue concerning the appointment of a miscreant to the post of Student Body President at some California College, is something of a relatively minor nature. College students are adults, sufficiently mature to make such decisions, and not easily influenced, particularly about matters of sexual orientation, so I would have few concerns about that matter. No Student Body President (a completely inconsequential post, anyway) is able to convince a young adult to alter his natural sexual orientation.

 

Being an Aussie, you arent' familiar with a slew of California laws recently passed that promote gay pedophilia and its cyclic effects.

Consider gay icon Harvey Milk, enshrined as a matter of law in California as embodying the LGBT movement "across the nation and the world". Milk stood for openly promoting his alternative gay sexuality. He was and is embraced by gays and lesbians nationwide. He enjoyed sodomizing teen boys on drugs as his expressed and unapologetic "gay lifestyle". When reminded of this, gays jump to his defense instead of dethroning him.

That's problem number 1 you're either not aware of or ignoring..

Problem # 2 is that recently also a law was passed in California prohibiting a therapist from treating a minor who comes to his or her office wanting to be rid of their own disasterous unwanted gay compulsions...even if they arise from that minor child's known history of having been molested as a child by a same-gendered perp. Gays rise to this accusation with "every child can get help if they were molested"... but neglect to say the new law does not discriminate and bans any and all efforts to help that child determine his or her own sexual personhood, if it involves changing from so-called "gay" [imprinted via molestation] to hetero.

Thankfully an injunction was place against that law and it's being challeneged by therapists and patients alike. Imagine removing a minor's personal autonomy when s/he [not their parents] chooses to want to be rid of a compulsive behavior that feels foreign to them, and in fact is..

But in that same state, if a child feels pressured to change from hetero and "try gay" or be "bi-curious" [all adolescents are sexually curious], then the floodgates open and every resource known to mankind is laid at their feet, nay, nipped at their heels, to urge them in the direction of "coming out of the closet".

Tell me it isn't political. And about politics and the gay issue and flat reasonable logic vs political nonsense, you may want to read this thread before you make up your mind that there's nothing fishy with the gay subculture >> http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...constitution-itself-via-doma-prop-8-a-44.html

 

Yes Hummingbird, I did. Maybe you could post excerpts about him here. And any relations he might have of the last name who are also heavily involved in promoting the Gay Agenda...

Yes, I'll leave that up to you..

 

You are correct in that basic assumption, but I am a British Citizen who is currently studying in Australia.

TBH, I had only vaguely heard of Harvey Milk to date, so I had to Google his name to learn anything about him. I learnt that he was an American politician who was openly homosexual, and I also learned that he had a five year gay relationship with a man who was 16 when they first met. 16 was under the age of consent in parts of the US, but is the age of consent just about everywhere else in the world. That relationship would not appear to label anyone as a paedophile - but perhaps an ephebophile. The New York Times had this to say about him -

I say this with respect, but if there is a problem - it exists in your perception. I have no agenda regarding homosexual people - I regard them as simply another demographic.

I am not qualified to comment upon American politics, particularly party politics, so I can't tell you whether the injunction to which you refer is politically motivated or not. I am totally apolitical (in the party political sense) in my own society, and my interest lies in what is generally termed social justice. It is the reason I have chosen to study the law, jurisprudence, and international affairs.

Given what we know about homosexuality as a sexual orientation, there is no hard evidence that it is either nature or nurture, but the balance of probability lies in the fact that it is not a conscious choice. Sexual activity may be a conscious choice, but neither heterosexuality, nor homosexuality, is something we wake up one morning and decide to adopt.

If homosexual behaviour 'feels foreign' to anyone, it would seem that is not their sexual orientation. I cannot speak for homosexuals, but as a heterosexual still in my late teens, I cannot imagine being 'bi-curious' or wanting to 'try gay' at any stage of my life. One is either inherently homosexual or bisexual in order to even have the curiosity to perform a homosexual act. The human body doesn't work that way - and that sort of curiosity only occurs in pre-pubescent children, who have little desire to repeat the experience when they mature sexually. LOL, I grew up in a boarding school - 'nuff said!

To turn to 'Conversion Therapy', or 'Reparative Therapy', as it is known in reference to 'treating' homosexuality, the effectiveness of these methods is highly suspect, and by no means proven. It would take a book to list the problems with these concepts, but this comment made by Robert Spitzer in expressing his regrets for publishing his 2003 study of highly religious individuals who said their sexual orientation was changed by reparative therapy, is significant.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

In addition to which, the American Psychological Association created a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation which reviewed the relevant research literature. It found "serious methodological problems in this area of research, such that only a few studies met the minimal standards for evaluating whether psychological treatments, such as efforts to change sexual orientation, are effective...

Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE..."

In addition, the Task Force found evidence to indicate that some individuals experienced harm or believed they had been harmed by these interventions.

The American Psychological Association passed a resolution in 2009 which stated it found that "enduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] and did not report significant change to other-sex attractions that could be empirically validated ..."

In view of which, and irrespective of the alleged influences of the 'gay community', it is my opinion that the prohibition by American psychiatrists against subjecting minors to these therapies is both legally valid and wise.

And I mean no disrespect whatsoever to any homosexual people, but in closing, I ask you, given the social repercussions, why on earth anyone would choose to be homosexual. If adolescents feel gay urges, it is because they are gay - it is not a disease which may be 'cured'.

 

I wouldn't count on it.

 

"Highly suspect, and by no means proven"....just like gays claiming homosexuals are "born that way".

I know of at least one who wasn't. My "gay" friend who was actually straight and molested as a young boy, grew up compulsively thereafter attracted hypersexually to men but fell in love with women. He was torn up inside, filled with angst. How he desperately would've loved to be an experiment to try out reparative therapy instead of being forced to "embrace who he was [had become via sexual assault]"

He went on to contract HIV and from there carried out a vendetta to infect as many of those "that did this to him" as he could before he died of AIDS in his early 30s.

You know, sometimes it helps to just simply open up your eyes and see the obvious. But don't ignore the findings from the Mayo Clinic and CDC which both find links to gays and childhood sexual abuse..

 

Because they didn't HIRE him. Do you know what a student body president is? It's a student who is elected by students to represent them in student government meetings. It's not a job. it's essentially a club activity. Student government in general is a club activity, done after-hours by students, so there's no reason for anyone to assume that "vetting" applies here. The only vetting that could have happened was when this man submitted an application to the college, when they could have not admitted him to that college. That was the only real way that a college could have prevented any convict from being elected to student government -- not admitting them to the college. Whether or not that's a good idea is a separate issue, it has nothing to do with what happened, which is that a student with a past was elected student body president by the students and is representing the students -- he's not paid anything, he doesn't represent the school, he attends student government after classes. What probably is more germane to the discussion is why this particular conviction was not seen as a deal-breaker in the elections. Students, if they knew, seemed to not care very much.

If he was paid by the university, he should be fired, but an unpaid club is not the same thing. It goes more to the rights of anyone in the student body to stand for elected student office, and unless the student handbook or other school rulebook made clear that felons were not able to stand for student government elections, there is nothing that the school can do at this point other than try to change the rules so that the same thing doesn't happen again.

 

Well if they keep the guy and keep promoting guys like Harvey Milk in California, eventually California will wake up and smell the gay pedophilia. It's just a matter of time before these values and the growing catholic/hispanic values clash.. Well, they already did in Prop 8, but even back then few there likely knew of the close ties between NAMBLA and the LGBT movement.. Search engines can instantly change all that.

Gay civil rights leader Harry Hay marches in the 1986 LA gay pride parade..

 

I agree, his info was available, and was still elected. I may not agree with someone being elected with that background, but he did everything he was legally obligated to do (ie - registering with the school, avoiding kids per the probation period)


What looks like happened here is people were just too lazy to actually research the candidates (where they would have seen he was a pedo). They elected him not knowing, but not knowing was due to their own laziness.

He was elected because he was 'the gay candidate' and liberal school voters will vote for him on that fact alone. When you vote for a woman because she's a woman, or a gay because he's gay, or Obama because he's black, or even a man because he's a man, and for no other reason, you run into issues like this.

 

Very well said Javis. People should be judged only on their merits and no favoritism should be shown to anyone. Another way of saying that is that we should be as suspicious of a person's merits as equally as the next one. It may come across as a jaded view, but in positions of power you can't be too careful.

 

exactly. But intellectual dishonesty says you aren't allowed to question Obama's policies, or you're racist.... or you aren't allowed to question a gay's policies, or you're homophobic.

I could absolutely vote for a conservative black person (Condi Rice), a conservative gay man (don't know of any off the top of my head but log cabin republicans meet the definition) if/when they exist.

I couldn't imagine ever voting for a candidate 'because he's a redhead like me' not knowing anything else about that person. But people do it (on both sides) all the time.