Posted on 06/30/2009 9:30:53 AM PDT by Maelstorm
It’s slowly starting to make the news, now. To be sure, the “mainstream” media is doing as little as possible to cover this heinous crime, but the new media is starting to make it know despite their efforts to promote their “objective bias.”
I’m talking about Frank Lombard, Associate director of Duke University’s Center for Health Policy, and his despicable molestation of a 5-year old boy he adopted.
According to RPV Network, Lombard
was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old African American son for sex to an undercover cop. Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son to the undercover officer in an online chat room under the user name “Perv Dad for Fun”. He invited the under cover officer to travel to North Carolina to rape his already-molested adopted son. Lombard faces 20 years in prison if convicted but is not eligible for the death penalty.
This is a video (see below) from a local newscast at WRAL; in case it doesn’t embed well, you can go here to watch the report. The video report says Lombard told undercover cops that he specifically adopted a black child because they are “easier to adopt” than white children. He also said that the abuse was easier to perpetrate when the child was too young to talk or know what was happening, and he had drugged the child with benadryl during the molestation. Lombard lived in the house with another homosexual, but waited until the partner was gone to perpetrate the abuse.
What a disgusting excuse for a human being. It doesn’t matter who did this to the child; it was extremely wrong. But as I alluded to before, perhaps because Lombard was a homosexual, the “mainstream” media seems to be keeping this outrageous crime very low-key…as they have done in the past when homosexuals have committed terrible crimes against children and other adults.
Research also indicates that the rate of molestation at the hands of homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals.
Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, says that Department of Justice statistics show that 67 percent of all reported sex abuse victims are children and 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under 12.
The Baptist Press also reports that a study a study by Dr. Gene Able, director of the Behavioral Sciences Institute in Atlanta, which was published in 1987 in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, found that homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence five times greater than the molestation rate of girls. The study found that 150 boys are molested by one male homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls by heterosexual offenders.
This is especially telling because according to a survey commissioned last year by the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign, only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. This means that while only making up a tiny portion of the overall population, the perpetration of male molestation by homosexuals is greater than the much larger general population.
This behavior would seem to go hand in hand with findings that homosexual males were molested as children at much higher rates than heterosexual men: 35% versus 4%; one study found a ratio as high as 46% to 7%. As a former law enforcement official, the information we had indicated that people who were molested as children have a greater likelihood of perpetrating that behavior on others when they grow up.
The Daily Mail from Great Britain reported last month that a homosexual activist was exposed as a ringleader in one of Scotland’s biggest pedophilia rings. According to the article, James Rennie, 38, molested a three-month-old baby boy.
Rennie, 38, molested the toddler son of unsuspecting friends – a little boy he had been trusted to babysit – recording the abuse and sharing it with other perverts.
During their investigations, police recovered tens of thousands of still and moving images of the most vile child abuse.
As bad as this is, it isn’t the worst of it:
One of the most worrying aspects of the case is the way Rennie was able to reach a position where he could influence Executive policy on child sexuality.
A trained teacher, Rennie became the boss of LGBT Youth Scotland, a publicly-funded support group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people.
He took on the £40,000 a year role when the group was set up in 2003 and became the Executive’s most important and influential adviser on gay issues affecting children.
Under his leadership, the group backed proposals to allow gay adoption. As well as appearing in the Scottish parliament, he was invited to a Royal Garden Party and to Downing Street.
This is far from the first time this has happened. The Daily Mail in Britain reported two years ago that a homosexual couple were allowed to foster care for several children and ended up molesting four boys:
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.
Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.
They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.
With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.
In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.
Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s explanations and did nothing.
Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.
No doubt “hate crime” laws and vociferous legitimization of homosexual behavior led to this dereliction of duty on the part of officials charged with protecting these children. This is what can happen when political correctness is put ahead of the welfare of the innocent.
And how much of this do we simply not hear about, since the “mainstream” media sold out long ago to running interference for the homosexual agenda.
We are making the same politically correct mistake here in the United States that puts children in harm’s way.
President Obama and his wife Michelle both push homosexual adoption in the United States, putting children at risk and at best deliberately depriving them of either a mother or a father.
And as if to mirror this story from the UK, President Obama has appointed Kevin Jennings, one of the biggest homosexual activists in the country, to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education. He is now in a very influential position to shape educational policy for our nation’s children.
Yes, child molestation can and does happen with heterosexuals, and that is just as wrong and as damaging to the child. Do all homosexuals molest? No.
But if a person is willing to step over the line of one standard of sexual conduct to perform acts that are immoral, unnatural and unhealthy, how likely is it they may reach the point where they are willing to step over even more critical ones? The breaking down of moral barriers and progressive depravity is a step-by-step process for most offenders that gets worse with each new stage.
The primary duty of government is to protect innocent citizens from harm. Except for children still in the womb, there are no human beings more vulnerable to harm than children. The state must stop treating children as if they were merely pets to be passed around and start rigorously protecting them from any substandard environment and environments that carry higher risks.
Homosexuals doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes is one thing. For the state to place children in harm’s way and to disregard the duty of the state to above all protect the innocent is unconscionable.
Uh huh. And when you judge, be sure you know what you're talking about.
It’s not. I said it was implied, but I don’t agree with that implication. *shrug* I’ve done the travel with a single parent while some siblings stay with the other, most commonly to visit out-of-state family, but that’s irrelevant.
Like I said in my post the act of going on a trip is itself neutral; it would be other things that would color it one way or another.
Most families don't always do *everything* together, for obvious reasons. Take a nursing baby on a 2-week motorcycle trip? No way!
There's other ways to give deserved time to a child than such extended exclusive attention.
Two weeks, out of an entire life? Not a great deprivation for the rest of the family, imo, and a HUGE event (I assume) to the 18-year-old in question. Don't you think the mother and younger girls said, "Great! Y'all have a nice time!" and planned activities that they would enjoy together in the absence of the father and teenager? That's what I would do. Having the 18-year-old out of the house for a while could be as much a reward for the mother and siblings as the trip would be for the daughter!
Perhaps the other children will get two-week trips with their Dad when they're older. Usually some family members have an interest that others don't. I couldn't go on a motorcycle trip, if (hypothetically), my husband had decided to take our 18-year-old on such an excursion. (I swore a blood oath to OldTax-lady that I'd never ride a motorcycle. Long story.) And it's understood, at least in my family, that older children get to do some things younger ones don't. Bill (15) gets to go on trips for marathon races; James (5) doesn't. The younger children will have experiences the older ones didn't, including their own rooms and no babies in the house, at some point!
It's thoughtful of you to be concerned about everyone's feelings, but families have different levels of all-togetherness that suit them
To be honest, I think the people speculating about impropriety simply have filthy minds, and if I knew them, I'd try to do something to shock them on a regular basis, just for kicks.
Which is why the Gay Mafia is always after kids. It's a recruitment tool.
In this family, two are HS age and the other just short of it. Also, the younger two have made decidedly unhappy remarks to my wife about it. These are people who never go anywhere on vacation. But now when one becomes possible...
And now I'm getting into specifics far more than I intended. I know you're trying to paint reasons why this isn't that unusual, but for this family it was. And, being something I wouldn't do unless the family was involved (when I went camping with the kids, they all went), I thought it worth commenting on. Thanks for your input.
Well, it’s too bad there are hurt feelings involved, although that’s what happens with teenage girls. My oldest is 18 (in her 3rd week of Coast Guard basic training!), and she was a raging nightmare the last year. Three teenage girls? ARRRRRRGH! My other two daughters are 11 and 9, and they’re going with their father to Myrtle Beach to visit his mother next month, leaving me with the six boys - and I’m not hearing any complaints. Maybe I’ll let one of the boys sleep in the girls’ room while they’re gone.
Aside from these issues of personal family dynamics, in the very unlikely event that the man and teenager had any inappropriate relationship, it had to have been going on for years, not originated with what is actually an adult woman. That makes the trip irrelevant to that consideration.
I don’t think the media are giving it a pass - I think it just doesn’t grab as much view share as Michael Jackson etc. When profits alone are the driving force of your news media one shouldn’t expect principled journalism.
Oh, I have no doubt nothing like that occurred. It's just this this family's dynamics lends itself more to family vacations and outings. I see by your remarks you have a large family. That's great. Yet being large, it doesn't lend itself as well to entire family extended vacations unless you have the wherewithal. Not many families do. The one I speak of is sufficient in that regard for its size.
And I think that's where the hurt feelings came from. They seldom do things like that together. Then when something comes up, the mom and two daughters are left out. I don't believe the mom's feelings were hurt, but the daughter's sure were.
I guess I look at it from the standpoint that as a dad, I'm responsible for my entire family's nurturing. If I can do something for one, I can do it for all unless it's specifically intended for that one individual. And in this case, it wasn't as far as I can tell. And it's obvious the other siblings feel neglected. Not that they are, but the feeling is there.
But it's the other implication you brought up that the neighbors were tuned in to. And no, I see no way that's in the cards.
Oh, well...
I’m certain that isn’t the case. We are talking very little reporting on this at all. I did notice Fox finally picked it up today through the AP but the AP clearly edited it down to be meaningless. Well they will find the story eventually. I’m emailing media and churches on my own. I also have a list of more than 500 people I have yet to email it too. It may not make a difference but this is certainly worth fighting for.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529529,00.html?test=latestnews
fathers aren’t allowed to travel with their daughters?
Since when?
Never said that. Read my subsequent posts.
“To be honest, I think the people speculating about impropriety simply have filthy minds, and if I knew them, I’d try to do something to shock them on a regular basis, just for kicks”
I was thinking the same thing.
Of course it is. I didn’t mean to suggest that these sorts of things aren’t worth fighting for. I just think that we have a media that doesn’t fight for much of anything and won’t be interested in it. I don’t believe it’s bias so much as laziness, irresponsibility, etc. etc. .... Perhaps if the child had been molested by Michael Jackson it might be noticed more but otherwise it’s not gonna be picked up. By the time the media ditzes are willing to pay attention to this there will be something else new and shiny coming up on the horizon.
Well - my hubby has done this very thing and I wouldn’t describe him as naive or not caring about the other kids.
If it were a Conservative straight church going man of any stature it would’ve been news.
That may be, but if you read a later post, this fellow's other two children had their nose bent out of shape. Much of it depends on family dynamics, family history, family cohesiveness. And it was the neighbor's unseemly opinion that got me wondering (not about their misguided opinions) about whether this was a good idea for this dad...or not.
Because we’re homeschoolers, we’re able to go on vacations during others’ off-season. We’ve rented a lake house for a week in September, less than an hour from home, at a very nice rate; my parents-in-law may be able to join us. We’ve done some oceanside vacations on the same basis. The house cost is less than $1,000, and “survival” costs, food and so on, are no different from being at home. (More families should try this - declare an exposure to Mexican Flu if you have to!)
I think when the younger girls in the family you mention get their opportunity to travel with Dad, they’ll get over their envy of the older sister. As I said, teenage girls are Like That. My brother was in the Air Force when I went on most of my big trips with Dad, and Mom was happy to be rid of both of us! Dad has Alzheimers Disease now, and isn’t able to do many of things with his grandchildren that we had hoped he could, but on his next visit here, I plan to get out the pictures of our trip to the Big Bend to remind him. We made it rain there for the first time in a year!
I did some checking it was merely a gay friendly leftist commune. I’ll edit my blog post to fix that. They could have lots of fun with this story. I mean Nancy Grace can get outraged at anything.
Nancy Grace gets outraged by cloudy skies. You should have bigger goals than getting her riled up ;>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.