Defend Tom Bauerle, not Kevin Jennings
Tags: Artvoice, Barack Obama, Buffalo, Buffalo News, Education, Kevin Jennings, Tom Bauerle
Local left-wing Obamabots have been moaning and groaning over things Tom Bauerle said on his radio show this week by comparing the 100 year-old pedophile who was freed this week to Obama’s ”Safe Schools” Czar, Kevin Jennings. Here are the objectionable comments (transcript via The Albany Project)
BAUERLE: But at the same time as this article is in the Buffalo News and some of the other news stations, you do realize that your president - and I say your president because Erie County voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama - your president, he has a friend - Kevin Jennings - who is a pervert. He is a pervert because he thinks it’s okay to teach children about hardcore sexual activity. He has asked children the question spit or… he thinks that’s okay. His organization has had workshops for children in the sexual practice known, believe me I kind of blush saying this on the radio, a sexual practice known as fisting. I don’t even want to talk about what it is. Children!
BAUERLE: So we have this picture in the paper of this local pedophile. Let’s say he’s molested a few children over the years. Yet, we have a guy President Obama has appointed to be the so-called safe schools czar who openly advocates what this guy did. What is wrong with this picture folks?
[...]
BAUERLE: You’ve got the president’s safe schools czar who is a pedophile by proxy and he supports teaching young children about acts that if I describe them in great detail on the radio I would be fired, fined or both.
Naturally, the left-wing rag Artvoice attacked Bauerle’s comments:
To justify his odious comparison, Bauerle read aloud an editorial in the Washington Times attacking Jennings, and alluded to a litany of Jennings’ supposed offenses fabricated by right-wing attackbots which even Fox News has disavowed. This Limbaugh by proxy has run his course.
Of course, it was a weak straw man attack that did nothing to contradict the known facts about Jennings.
The Albany Project, a left-wing blog, also attacked Bauerle, linking to, of all places, Media Matters, which defends Jennings by pointing out the Jennings had not covered up statutory rape, because the child involved in the reported incident was 16, not 15… as if somehow that is supposed to make us feel better about the “Safe Schools” Czar. I didn’t realize that condoning sexual relations between an adult and a minor was okay for a “Safe Schools” Czar.
Using the “age of consent” defense to defend an obviously inappropriate relationship is ridiculous politically convenient loophole that allows Democrats to defend rapists like former Rep. Gerry Studds, who had a sexual affair with congressional page, but attack former Rep. Mark Foley, who, as far as we know, never did.
If you want to be one of those liberals who relies on the “age of consent” nonsensical defense of Jennings, think about it again from the perspective of a parent, and the child in question was yours. Yeah. Exactly.
The fact there is plenty of evidence that puts Jennings’ morals into question. BigGovernment.com has uncovered quite a bit of information on the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which Jennings founded in 1990. Everything from promoting “fisting” to 14-year-olds, pushing anonymous sex with strangers to teens, handing out “fisting kits” and sexually explicit handbook to kids. Despite claims by left wing groups that Jennings didn’t know about these outrages, evidence suggests he very much did. And, let’s say, hypothetically, that he wasn’t involved in the said incidents, it was still his organization, and no matter how you want to spin it, he bears responsibility. So, enough with that bogus line of defense.
Then of course there’s the fact that Jennings praised a known supporter of NAMBLA, Anyone want to defend that?
So, here are three questions to be answered:
- Why would Media Matters and left wing bloggers defend Kevin Jennings?
- Why are local left wing bloggers attacking Tom Bauerle for being appropriately outraged by Jennings questionable actions and associations?
- Why aren’t they demanding this guy be removed as the “Safe Schools” Czar?
I think the answer is simple. It has less to do with Jennings and what he’s done, and more to do with defending Obama. It’s sad, but these are the same people who repeatedly defend the indefensible when it comes to Obama, so it isn’t very surprising.
A sexual predator is still a sexual predator, regardless of his party affiliation. A pervert is still a pervert, even if appointed by Barack Obama to be “Safe Schools” czar.
Is Obama really so worth defending that you have to stretch and bend the truth and your own morals to defend one his appointees? Even as Barack Obama’s approval numbers are tanking, there is still some loyal worshippers who will stop at nothing to defend him.
Is blind Obama worship making liberals defend the indefensible because they want to protect Obama? Sorry folks,but you got problems. If you are defending Kevin Jennings (and effectively his organization) but attacking Bauerle, then I wouldn’t want you within 100 yards of my kids.
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Blogs For Victory. Follow Matt on Twitter.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Nice try, but you completely missed the point.
Whatever acts or omissions Jennings is guilty
of (allegedly), he did not rape a toddler or a tween girl, which is the false and dumb equivalence Bauerle, (and now you) drew.
It’s not unlike comparing someone like Obama
or Bush to Hitler. Just dumb beyond belief.
No, what’s dumb beyond belief is excusing the actions of Jennings and his organization just to protect Obama.
Would you want your kids being given the literature that GLSEN was distributing to young kids? Would you approve of a man or a group that advocated minor having anonymous sex with adults? Do you honestly not believe that Jennings and his group are not enabling/promoting/normalizing statutory rape and pedophilia?
Do you really want to be that person? Do you really see no basis for comparison between a pedophile and someone who is essentially an accessory to statutory rape and pedophilia?
Would you want your kids being given the literature that GLSEN was distributing to young kids?
If I had a gay teenage boy who was about to be sexually active, then perhaps I might. It’s not like we’re talking about a fisting breakout session in the middle of a Presbyterian church’s Passion Play. This discussion about fisting took place at a gay conference in a class entitled “queer sex: what they don’t teach you in sex ed” or something, and the fisting discussion came in reply to an audience question. So, if we’re being accurate, it helps to be accurate and within the context of what’s being discussed.
To your second question, no, I don’t “approve” of NAMBLA or its members. I’m not aware of Jennings or his group “enabling/promoting/normalizing” anything having to do with NAMBLA.
Unless Jennings went out and raped two pre-teen boys or girls, to compare him to the 100 year-old convict pedophile who did do such a thing is ridiculous, no matter how skeeved out you are by frank talk about what some gay people do to each other. If I had a gay kid, I’d want him to learn what was and wasn’t safe, plus I’m a big boy and not a prude and can handle frank discussions of sex.
The NAMBLA thing is second-hand guilt-by-association. I know that’s a popular attack method by people on the right, but it’s pretty facile. Harry Hay was a gay rights pioneer, and while his words of support for NAMBLA may be abhorrent to me or you, he was making a larger point about assimilation with it. In any event, do you approve of everything everyone around you does or has ever done? Are you able to disagree (even viscerally) with someone about something yet still recognize that they may have been right and on-point about other things?
Finally, in your own post you acknowledge that you can’t be sure whether Jennings knew about any of the stuff you cite, but that “evidence suggests” that he did. So I don’t even known what you’re on about here. If you can’t prove he knew about it, how could he have enabled or promoted any of it?
Or, we can just say Jennings is just like a toddler-fucker because someone who worked for him talked about fisting to some teenagers.