New York Child Psychologist Arrested For Child Porn

ICE.gov ^ | September 22, 2005

[GOPJ]

Parents" today really sicken me as they routinely outsource their most precious gift in the world - a child to eager, happy predators.

Gimme a break. Parents send their kids to a church and they get molested and you want to condemn the parent? Are you nuts?

A parent has a child with emotional problems and they put their child in with one of these twisted sick pedophile psychologist ... and you want to blame the parent?

What about the parent who sends their child to school? And the school system hasn't tested for pedophiles. You want to blame the parent? For sending their child to school? You're wrong. You are blaming the innocent and providing cover for the sick twisted creeps. The pedophile is wrong. No one but the sickest feel sympathy for the evil while condemning the innocent.

[nmh]

Do you really THINK that warehousing them in "daycare" is a good idea? Where do you think predators are? NEAR THEIR PREY - "daycare". They don't have cameras in the bathroom ... much goes on there.

Sure it can happen elsewhere - but in "daycare" they have plenty of time to do what they want and their paid for it too!

I DO blame parents who put the almighty dollar BEFOER the welfare of their kids - when it comes to "daycare" where no one really "cares" about the kid. It's a paid job and nothing more.

I expect parents to be watchful over their kids and RAISE THEIR OWN KIDS, even if it means to "sacrifice" alittle on their part to accomplish that. Today they want it all NOW and are unwilling to give up anything.

[shield]

SICKO SICKO SICKO

[GladesGuru]

If one accepts your suspicions about any who work with those under the age of majority, one falls directly into the trap set by Communism Lite and its fellow travelers in a horde of agencies, NGO's, ad nauseam.

Throughout America's history, before the New Deal and the Great Society, the individual regulated his own behavior. This was a matter of internalizing the American culture.

Part of that culture was that one mentored, not mounted, the young. Many a boy learned about things from horses to tractors to airplanes by watching and helping adults doing things which that boy found interesting.

Girls likewise found adults doing things they were interested in.

A careful reading of either the Old Testament or the New Testament will show than sin is nothing new. People sinned with their neighbor's wife or husband, with the neighbor's children, even with the neighbor's animals.

No government agencies were needed to either deal with the offenders or to "prevent" such behavior. The obvious reason is that no agency can watch all wives, all husbands, all children and all animals all the time.

America's great gifts to the world included the idea that man was capable of regulating his own behavior. For hundred's of years Americans did regulate their own behavior during good times and bad. From the "Starving winter" described by Governor Bradford on, Americans coped with sexual, criminal and natural disaster challenges to their growing civilization.

While Puritan New England had a casual bastardy rate of some 25%, somehow children were raised, men found to father the children, and America became the model for, and the goal of, people all over the world.

The Communism Lite trap of allowing government to intrude on the raising of children has a nasty historical record. Google what happened under the Third Reich. But don't stop there - a further search will show example of failed socialist experiments. All of which have as a major component the substitution of the basic family with a mother and a father for some socialist delusion.

Children from families where the parents are following the historical method of raising their children know are having a far lower level of abused children than families (term used loosely) where the child is under state authority.

For example, in the Sheeples Republic of FloriDUH, according to the state's own data, a child taken from a physically or sexually "abusive" situation will be subjected to a greater rate of physical or sexual abuse while in state custody/control.

The well meaning attempt to put government into the business of raising children has been proven to be nothing more or less than a government imposed tax to support Chester the Molester.

Only parents, neighbors and churches have any record of success in the child raising process.

There are far worse things than child sexual abuse. Consider that the destruction of the family amongst America's urban black and hispanic populations has produced a level of bastardy unknown in all of America's previous history.

Those who think that any agency can substitute for a family or local clergy are denying a clear and unambiguous historical record.

It has been my experience that Edmund Burke was correct when he said "Those loudest for the public good have it least at heart."

Certainly, the swarms of "child advocates" loudly proclaiming the need for more laws and funding for their cause are walking, talking proof of the accuracy of Burke's observation.

While there will always be some sexual behavior between child and adult, might I suggest that the Law of Unintended Consequences insures that allowing government to attempt to deal with what is essentially beyond government's power or control is sure to both fail and to erode the historic American child rearing practices.

Worst of all, your suspicion results in both a population and laws which are based upon an assumption of guilt.

America is based upon the assumption of innocence. The assumption of guilt is what foreigners have accepted, not Americans.

The French Civil Code is based upon assumption of guilt - the citizen must prove his innocence. And I doubt anyone would assume the French have any less sex between child and adult.

In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principle, for certain principles are antithetical to Liberty. Your principle of assumption of guilt on the part of all who work with children is one such principle antithetical to Liberty.

[GladesGuru]

"So, you ask how can you stop this? How about RAISING YOUR OWN KIDS AT HOME instead of living beyond your means and chasing the almighty dollar. Too many parents prioritize money over their kids."

Wisdom in one short paragraph! Well said, nmh.

[GladesGuru]

If hombre-sincero is correct, Costa Rica should have a most interesting scene developing soon. There is a well developed community of retired special forces retirees in Costa Rica.

In a conflict between "life styles" between those retirees and the reported "queer nation" emigrees, I'd refuse to place one cent of my money on the "queer nation" emigrees.

Some things are simply a foregone conclusion.

[little jeremiah]

If only licensed psychologists were allowed to marry...

It doesn't say (or I didn't see) if the psych. had girls or boys on his computer...

Later disgusting pingout.

[pageonetoo]

Time to bring back public stonings.

Time to bring back public hangings. Rape used to be a capitol offence, along with murder, and kidnapping. Who changed it? Probably the same "doctors" who used to call homosexuality a "disorder"!

[GOPJ]

Do you really THINK that warehousing them in "daycare" is a good idea? Where do you think predators are?

This article didn't talk about "daycare". It talked about teachers, psychologist, clowns, etc., etc. Are you saying that a caring parent must keep their child away from church? ( Priest and ministers were mentioned) You're position, one that doesn't express one word of outrage for the creepy sick evil pedophiles is weird. nmh, all your scorn is heaped on innocent parents and their wounded children.

Please, just me make me feel less creeped out, would you please say one thing about the child rapists. You know, spew out some of that venom for the evil ones. You can do it - say something bad about those who rape and exploit the children.

[GOPJ]

...the subscribers arrested to date include an elementary school teacher, priests, school principals, school coaches, school janitors, camp counselors, campus ministers, pediatricians, circus clowns, Boy Scout leaders, police officers, firefighters, and many others with direct access to children. Some of these individuals were also found to have been involved in the production and distribution of child pornography.

And we're supposed to keep our kids away from all these groups? School principals? Priests? Pediatricians? Firefighters? Come on, let's go after the pedophiles. Pedophiles are the evil ones. Not sick. Evil.

[knuthom]

I predict a defense that he was "studying" child porn in order to help children.

[tuesday afternoon]

While there will always be some sexual behavior between child and adult

Call it what it is: child sexual abuse.

People who use innocent-sounding euphemisms for this heinous crime always raise the hackles on the back of my neck.

[GladesGuru]

"Down, hackles, down." Contrary to your rather insulting post which implied I was a member of a " People who use innocent-sounding euphemisms for this heinous crime", I was carefully using precise terminology.

I so did just so that I would not draw the ire of activists who were outraged over being 'outed', so to speak, by Burke's observation of over a century ago.

While I agree with you about the validity of the term "abuse" when used in cases where the 'child' isn't of an age to know what it is doing, such is not the case with many in the 15 to 17 age population, some of whom have been sexually mature since well before their earliest teen years..

But, to call a sexual relationship between a wannabe Monica Lewensky eagerly & willingly servicing someone of either sex just because some PC correct asses decided to raise the age of consent to 18 at a time when onset of menses has dropped by years - is just ass-inine. Please forgive the pun.

It also allows for government to "justify" intruding where it has no chance of success and where it can, and already has, damaged historically proven child rearing practices.

The historical way had it's share of what were undeniably abusive situations. But allowing government agencies and "activists" into the picture has caused more abuses, not less.

This is, alas, not a perfect world.

I can only suggest that those who depart from historically proven social practices, like sex after marriage, run ever increasing risks.

Criminalizing relationships between females/males at ages when most of the world allows/expects marriage would seem to be a good example of allowing ones agenda to overcome ones grasp of what is actually happening in the real world.

Not that 'Agenda Uber Alles' ever bothered the drooling swarms of 'crats and activists busy feeding in the government trough.

[GladesGuru]

Ah, the infamous "academic" defense.

;-)

Lawyers have a saying "When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither are on your side pound on the table."

Pity the poor court room table when this case is heard.

[tuesday afternoon]

You are the one who used the term child: sexual behavior between child and adult.

[joesnuffy]

He probably diagnosed all his victims as pathologic and in
need of the rapy...

[GladesGuru]

Unfortunately, the population we are discussing seems to be divided up into only children and adults. This is manifestly inadequate, as the societal interest in sexual acts including a "child" of 17 years of age is very different from a child of a few years of age.

Might I suggest that the activists and agencypersons are well aware of this, but are also well aware that painting with a broad brush gives them more power and arbitrary power at that.

I can think of no other reason why putatively professional perple would use the same word to includ young children and late teenagers.

But, thanks to those putative professionals, and their PACs and enablers in the mainstream media, laws now largely (though not completely) treat such sex acts as criminal acts.

Were these laws to be uniformly enforced, most high schools would no longer be as crowded.

[tuesday afternoon]

the societal interest in sexual acts including a "child" of 17 years of age is very different from a child of a few years of age.

You are comparing a 17 year old minor to a two year old?

Where exactly do you draw the line?

[GladesGuru]

Being an ecologist rather than a psychologist (even though I had a NASA grant used in the psych dept. while an undergrad) because I like being in an area where hard data is preferred to hard ball politics and agendas, I don't have to make such distinctions.

Not my job, not my field, not my problem.

From just a perspective of my philosophy, I think that such a decision should be left to the parents and the "child". While I would hope both parents and offspring would understand why Judeo-Christian societies have the sex within marriage commandment, and accept said commandment, still I am aware that some will choose to do otherwise.

For those, I can think of none as familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the "child" as the parents, assuming the "child" has two parents.

For the "child" with only one parent, the outlook is so clearly more risk filled that I can only suggest that any such offspring of a single parent family be exceeding careful to wait until they are finished with their education and are financially independent.

Unfortunately many are, de facto, finished with their education even before puberty. For these unfortunate fruit of the poison tree of Liberalism I can only suggest attempting to follow historically tested and validated social commandments known in non-Liberal circles as the Ten Commandments.

My apologies if I have no quick answers to your question, but I know of no snappy, satisfying answers. For such might I suggest a visit to DU or the nearest school "sex ed" curriculum. I am fresh out of Liberal answers.

Worse yet, having been a "late bloomer" I was well into college when I began my first relationship so I can't tell you anything about sex in the underage brackets from personal experience while in that age bracket. Again, my apologies

I can only offer what I have posted and suggest that you read more of American history, preferably from the original documents.

At my education facility I have a simple rule which has worked well for decades. "Participation at the ____ ____ is a privilege, not a right. You are here to learn and share ideas. Many are under what your society has defined the age of consent to be.

Therefore, I don't care if you like guys, gals, or goats - not here. And if you are over the age of consent, don't disturb the concentration of others with public displays of what ladies and gentlemen consider private behavior.

All violators will be shipped home by Yellow Cab. Collect.

Consider how long your parents will ground you when they pay the bill for a cab ride of 100 to 150 miles. Think "next Ice Age"."

Well, that concludes my attempts at societal, parental and institutional answers. I hope I answered you to your satisfaction.

[Publius6961]

This type of thought crime witch hunt could backfire.
Suppose most of the participants in the prosecution began finding "forbidden" images on their computers at work and at home?
Or better yet, start having kiddie cops show up at their workplace or homes with warrants?

We all know that a simple accusation is harmless, right?

Right?