posted by JimK at 7:06 AM
"As GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain defended his reputation against Sharon Bialek's sexual harassment allegations at a Nov. 8 Phoenix press conference, one person was conspicuously absent, and has been throughout the POLITICO scandal and the 2012 campaign in general.At the Phoenix press conference, the Republican primary candidate told America about his wife Gloria Cain, and her shocked disgust at Bialek's accusations and the POLITICO scandal at large. "I have known you for 46 years," Cain reported his wife saying, "and that doesn't even sound like anything you would ever do to anyone!"Statements like these, giving a play-by-play of Mrs. Cain's reactions to the scandal and her continued support of her businessman spouse, have been a go-to strategy of the Cain campaign for 2012 so far."My wife, obviously like most spouses, actually took it [the accusations] harder than I did," Cain told Fox News' Geraldo Rivera."See the candidate, being me, it's like I'm in boxing match every day, throwing punches," Cain said. "[But] when you've got to turn on the TV, watch all of the exaggerations and innuendos about your husband, that you know hadn't done anything wrong, that can have an emotional toll.""But she's doing fine now," Cain assured viewers. "She doing fine now."Maybe so. But Americans would feel a lot more certain about Herman Cain, his innocence, and the state of his family life if they could hear those assurances from Gloria Cain herself....In the days leading up to Gloria's interview for "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" on Nov. 3, the person talking about her most was, unsurprisingly, Mr. Cain himself, the man having his character, his sex life, and the sanctity of his marriage laid out for all America to examine.Mrs. Cain's "exclusive" interview with Greta Van Susteren would be, Cain assured the nation, a chance to "meet my wife publicly." Cain was still tied with fellow frontrunner Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, but the growing heft of the POLITICO story, even before Sharon Bialek came forward, was already causing Cain's momentum to take a hit.Gloria Cain was going to silence the critics, silence the rumors, and silence the flood of accusations pouring forth from former employees at the National Restaurant Association and federal organizations as her husband worked to become the nation's next president.But on Nov. 3, 2011, the only silence Americans heard was that of Gloria Cain herself. The Van Susteren interview was canceled mere hours before she was scheduled to appear, and no reason was initially given for her absence. Suddenly, Mrs. Cain's silence went from unusual to suspicious, and Cain's campaign found itself in a political double-bind."Interesting tidbit, apparently Mrs. Cain is brainwashed like the majority of blacks in this country per her husband."The Atlantic Journal-Constitution revealed another piece of information that could have been gold in the Cain campaign's struggle to nab independent and undecided voters: Gloria Cain votes Democrat.Though Cain insists his wife votes conservatively as well, she has voted consistently in Democratic primaries and runoffs since 2000-including a vote she cast for Barack Obama in early 2008."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
For crying out loud, "Anonymous".Pull yourself together, sit down, and have a nice cup of hot tea!Pedophiles who rape children are not homosexual...they are pedophiles. A large number of pedophiles are heterosexuals.It is correct to say that Sandusky was a repeat pedophile offender.You constant efforts to smear gay men with an evil broad brush is indicative of an individual who cannot understand or accept facts.http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
You will no doubt find the information contained in this link to be nothing but a pack of lies.That would say a lot about you.http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Republican%20pedophiles&defid=1382657Citizen
You can read the Jack Minor article in the Greeley Gazette, but you might want to also listen to Jack Minor's interview of World Net Daily's head birther Jerome Corsi about his book on Obama's birth certificate here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/jerome-corsi-interview-with-jack-minor.htmlHere are some of Minor's other recent articles:Obama Grinch to ax Christmas tree tax, for nowBorder agent jailed for raising drug smuggler’s armsColorado’s health care exchange will not stop federal takeoverPastor convicted for leaving Islam because “everyone is a Muslim”Michigan Muslims upset over Christian prayer meetingHotel allows terrorist supporter to speak, cancels conferences critical of IslamVeterans organization to hold meeting calling for Obama impeachmentAfter reading Jack Minor's slant about pedophila, you might want to read what more solid sources like Web MD and Wikipedia report about it so you might learn the facts rather than the vitriolic spin Jack Minor writes.WebMD"Explaining PedophiliaWhat Is Pedophilia?WebMD Feature Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MDThe ongoing Michael Jackson child molestation case has put pedophilia in the national spotlight once again. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- all the headlines surrounding the case, as well as lurid accounts of child molestation in the Catholic Church, many people still don't understand what this mental illness is all about.The biggest misunderstanding many people have is that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same. But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison. "They certainly are two distinct things," says James Hord, a psychologist in Panama City, Fla., who specializes in treating sexually abused children."The rest of this WebMD piece can be read at:http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophiliaWikipedia:"...Pedophilia can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time. These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses...."The rest of this Wikipedia article can be found at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
Theresa, I am assuming this is you commenting anonymously here. You asked for my comment. I just got home from a gig and am just now reading what people have been saying. I don't usually participate in the blog discussions these days but I will say something here.Jerry Sandusky's behavior has nothing to do with homosexuality or anything that gay people do. He set up an incredibly extensive system to cultivate children for his sexual gratification, the whole Second Mile program went on for years and years and made him look like a pillar of morality, but it was all a front for his depravity. The others in the athletic department, as well, appear to be straight, and they helped him pull it off. The real horror here is the high-level support system that let this abuse go on and on and on. A dangerous child molester on his own would be caught, in this case a heterosexual cabal protected him and allowed him to continue abusing children.He is married to a woman and it seems pretty clear that he is heterosexual but with a sick obsession with young boys. He is not gay, and the horrors he carried out have nothing to do with gay people.It is alarming to see you generalize the behavior of a monomaniacal predator to a group of people who are not like him, and who do not do what he does. Gay people are just people who are attracted to others of their own sex, there is nothing criminal about it. If a gay person commits a crime they are prosecuted for it like anybody else, and most of them do not -- I don't know but I'd bet the crime rate for gays is lower than for the heterosexual population. Your comments about gay teachers are completely out of bounds, there are many excellent gay teachers and the fact that a sadistic monster in Pennsylvania has abused children does not reflect on them at all. The fact that you make that connection, however, does reflect on you.Personally, the thing that strikes me about this is how these men have established themselves as monuments of virtue. They give speeches about honor and valor and about values and courage and other heart-warming themes, and when you get down to it, look what they are. Sandusky's behavior can only be described as depraved, and the whole self-serving bunch of hypocrites covered up for him for years while they went out giving their speeches and accepting the adulation of the crowds. They do not represent virtue. Can you imagine walking in on a man raping a child and not calling the police? They all knew what he was doing but they didn't want to upset the athletic program so they covered up for him. They present themselves as heroes but they are lower than scum.
"...many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents. "http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
"One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.
This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above."http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
"Gaining access to children has been a long-termgoal of the homosexual movement. In 1972, theNational Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a“Gay Rights Platform” that included the followingdemand: “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexualconsent.”http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdfIn a 1985 study of the rates of molestationamong homosexual pederasts compared to heterosexualpedophiles, Dr. Paul Cameron found the following:153 pederasts had sexually molested22,981 boys over an average periodof 22 years.224 pedophiles had molested 4,435girls over an average period of 18years.The average pederast molested anaverage of 150 boys, and each heterosexualpedophile molested anaverage of 20 girls, a ratio of 7.5 toone.
There is so much wrong with that quote that i dont' know where to start. Bob Knight and Paul Cameron are hate propagandists, they are not researchers.Some interesting history here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda
and more recent.Jim, aren't you proud of those you promote ?http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
Anon, I looked at this article. Some psychologists call pedophilia a sexual orientation, okay I can see how they think that, it is a condition that defines the kind of partner that a person is attracted to. And like homosexuality and heterosexuality it is innate and cannot be changed in most cases.They don't say that it's alright to have sex with children, they are just saying that therapy is unlikely to change the paraphilia.Later on, when they talk about the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, they say, accusingly, The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of "basic sexual rights" that includes "the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud." Children are incapable of giving consent, and so this statement rules out child molesting.They also note that "The organization also says that no one should be 'disadvantaged because of age.'" If you look at the document they are referring to you will see that they clearly mean old people. That statement also usees the word "consensual" which precludes children.This is stupid. Noboyd should have to refute this ignorant stuff. If you start out hating gay people you will always be able to dig up some writer who will say things to support your viewpoint, but it requires twisting words, tkaing things out or context, fake science, etc. OK, I'm done with this one.
this is anon-deluxehaven't been commenting as much lately but to pitch in a couple of cents:1. no one has proved anything against Herman Cain- those that sued his association have been reluctant to talk- the fourth person who did was not actually in his employment at the time of the alleged act so, even if they were truthful, she has no case- bottom line is none of this would hold up in court, he didn't do anything2. this whole claim that pedophiles who victimize young members of their own gender are not homosexuals is ludicrous3. clearly, pedophilia by homosexuals against males is at a proportion out of whack with the proportion of gays in the general population although, to be fair, it could be that's because females tend to more protected and watched while it's assumed that boys can take care of themselves
the Sandusky case may turn out to be the turning point for the anti-gay backlash we all knew was inevitable:"The Penn State debacle that erupted following football coach Joe Paterno's dismissal continues to rankle sports fans. Now, two high-profile voices are linking the child sex abuse charges facing Paterno's former assistant with the LGBT community -- in particular, citing the case as evidence against gay parenting and same-sex adoption. First to speak out was Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who used the much-publicized breakup of Toronto's famed "gay" penguins as evidence of "the fluidity" of sexual orientation before turning his attention to Penn State's retired assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who has been arrested and charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse involving eight boys over a 15-year period. "It's a simple, stubborn fact that homosexuals molest children at much higher rates than the heterosexual population," Fischer said. "This is one of the reasons the Boy Scouts have every right to keep homosexuals from becoming Boy Scout leaders."Echoing those sentiments was the Family Research Council's Jerry Cox, who appeared on the NPR news and analysis show "To The Point" via a California-based affiliate and used Sandusky's case as an argument against same-sex adoption. "I find it interesting that we talk about the Penn State situation, and then when we talk about people who claim to have these rights to adopt or foster; in both cases, the children's rights get put in second place," Cox told host Warren Olney."
Anon, do you actually think Sandusky was gay?
For the most part, official scientific organizations have paid very little attention to Cameron's studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron's research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.The American Psychological Association (APA) launched an investigation into Cameron after receiving complaints about his work from members. The APA President Max Seigel sent Cameron a letter on December 2, 1983 stating that the Board of Directors had decided to drop him from membership for failure to cooperate with their investigation. FRI has contended that Cameron had already resigned from the organization in November 1982, citing correspondence from before his formal expulsion. In a letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor, Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society. An APA spokesperson told The Boston Globe in 2005, "We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak."In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron". In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution condemning Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research". This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarized Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work." In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organization from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron
After Dr. Cameron submitted affidavits to the U. S. District Court of Dallas in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer wrote in his opinion that Cameron had "made misrepresentations to this Court". However, Buchmeyer's decision was later overturned by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, which specifically reversed the "misrepresentations" finding by Buchmeyer. FRI has disputed Judge Buchmeyer's assessment of Dr. Cameron's affidavits.Epidemiologists Morten Frisch and Henrik Brønnum-Hansen argue that Cameron was wrong to infer reduced life expectancy from the fact that deaths among homosexually married partners in Denmark and Norway occurred at a lower median age than those among heterosexually married partners: "Because the age distribution among persons in same-sex marriages was considerably younger than that of people who had ever been heterosexually married, the average age at death among those who actually died during the observation period was, not surprisingly, considerably younger in the population of same-sex married persons." Their own analysis found that excess mortality in Danish same-sex marriages since 1995 was "restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage". Similarly, critics have argued that obituaries in gay-themed newspapers, which Cameron used to estimate homosexual mortality, do not provide a representative sample of deaths and ignore surviving members of the same generation. Cameron has also been criticized for placing responsibility for same-sex child sexual abuse on "homosexuals"; opponents state that someone who carries out such abuse need not have a homosexual orientation with respect to other adults. Gregory M. Herek, a psychologist specialising in prejudice against sexual minorities, charges that Cameron misrepresented the literature he had reviewed and cited to support his claims, such as a Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study in which none of the participating child molestors actually identified as homosexuals, and none of those who were bisexual claimed to prefer men over women. Furthermore, while Cameron assumed all the same-sex molestations were perpetrated by homosexuals, he did not assume all the opposite-sex molestations were perpetrated by heterosexuals; he included a "bisexual correction" only for opposite-sex molestations that effectively increased the number of perpetrators described as "homosexual" without changing the number described as "heterosexual".
Herek noted that most of the Cameron group's academic publications in the past 15 years have been based on a survey study conducted in 1983 and 1984. The main survey was completed in seven U.S. cities and towns in 1983. Data were later added from a 1984 Dallas (TX) sample. Most of the Cameron group's papers have reported data from the combined samples. According to Herek, a critical review of the Cameron group's sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results reveals at least six serious errors in their study. Herek concludes, "an empirical study manifesting even one of these six weaknesses would be considered seriously flawed. In combination, the multiple methodological problems evident in the Cameron group's surveys mean that their results cannot even be considered a valid description of the specific group of individuals who returned the survey questionnaire. Because the data are essentially meaningless, it is not surprising that they have been virtually ignored by the scientific community." "The Cameron group has published its empirical research in academic journals with low prestige and, at least in the case of Psychological Reports, with a low rejection rate and a publication fee required from authors. Given the serious methodological flaws in their survey studies and obituary study, it is reasonable to conclude that the Cameron group's papers would have been rejected by more prestigious scientific journals. Other than the Cameron group itself, researchers have not cited their empirical studies as a source of ideas for new research on sexual orientation. Nor have scientists cited the group's papers to support assertions about the dangers to society posed by homosexuals."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron
Jim, can you delete the slander that is posted against me personally?
Sharon Bialek's ex-boyfriend confirms her sexual harassment storyPoll: Cain’s Support Plummets
WASHINGTON -- In 2008, the owners of a Sacramento ice cream parlor donated thousands of dollars to support Proposition 8, which would ban marriage equality in California. Gay rights activists, unhappy with the owners' actions, posted negative reviews of the company online. Protesters also stood outside the shop and handed out free rainbow sherbert and waved signs reading "I love rainbow sherbert" and "It's a rocky road to equality."That is just one of the examples that the National Organization for Marriage has cited as evidence of the "countless reports of threats, harassment, and reprisals" that marriage equality opponents have faced by LGBT activists.In another instance in Washington state, an opponent of marriage equality was collecting petition signatures to challenge a law granting legal protections to same-sex couples, when two ladies "glared at him and one said 'we have feelings too.'" He did not report the incident to the police.In state after state, judges are finding that these sorts of examples do not actually constitute "harassment," and they're rejecting NOM's requests to therefore keep its donors secret and be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws.NOM's strategy is essentially reversing the traditional argument -- that gay individuals frequently face harassment -- and arguing instead that gay individuals are the harassers.But four federal judges and three state boards in seven states -- California, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and Washington -- have all found NOM's evidence to be lacking. Not a single state has backed up NOM.NOM did not return a request for comment
you gave two examples and they were no doubt the examples that you feel best prove your point
Post a Comment