Research
Print

The smear campaign continues: Fox Nation, Washington Examiner manufacture Jennings-NAMBLA link

October 02, 2009 12:57 pm ET — 45 Comments

The Fox Nation and The Washington Examiner linked Department of Education official Kevin Jennings to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) based on a 1997 speech in which Jennings praised gay rights activist Harry Hay, who had spoken in support of the organization. But like many obituaries written about Hay upon his death in 2002, Jennings was touting Hay as a gay civil rights pioneer for his role in helping start "the first ongoing gay rights groups in America" in 1948, and Jennings' comments had nothing to do with NAMBLA.

Fox Nation and Washington Examiner smear Jennings with false NAMBLA link

From The Fox Nation:

foxnation_jennings

From an October 1 column by Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott:

Kevin Jennings, President Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug FreeSchools at the U.S. Department of Education, is in hot water this week for having failed to report that a 15-year-old sophomore student in his school had told him of having sex with an older man.

But failure to report what appeared to be a case of statuatory [sic] rape of a child may be the least of Jennings' worries. Lori Roman of Regular Folks United points to statements by Jennings a decade or more ago when he praised Harry Hay of the North American Association for Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which promotes the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.

Roman provides damning details and links here.

Conservative blogosphere runs with new smear of Jennings 

RedState.org: "I wonder if Kevin Jennings suppots [sic] NAMBLA." In a September 29 post on his Twitter account, RedState.org's Erick Erickson wrote, "I wonder if Kevin Jennings suppots [sic] NAMBLA."

Power Line's Hinderaker cited Jennings' speech, NAMBLA. In an October 1 post, Power Line's John Hinderaker noted Jennings' 1997 speech and wrote: "Obama nominee Kevin Jennings actually said that the founder of NAMBLA -- the North American Man-Boy Love Association -- Harry Hay, is '[o]ne of the people that's always inspired me,' " and asked, "Why, exactly, would a President put someone who admires those who advocate homosexual relationships between middle-aged men and high school or junior high school aged boys in charge of 'safety' in American public schools? Who would do that? It's not as though Kevin Jennings' benign view of such exploitation is a secret; on the contrary, this is his career, his claim to fame, his qualification for federal employment. One can only ask: is the Obama administration completely insane?" Hinderaker's claim that Hay founded NAMBLA is false.  As the Associated Press noted in 2002, Hay "in 1950 founded the secret network of support groups for gays known as the Mattachine Society."  Hay wrote in the Gay Community News (retrieved from Nexis) in 1994, "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one." 

Numerous other conservative blogs have raised the purported connection in linking to The Washington Examiner and the 1997 speech.

Jennings' 1997 speech: Nothing to do with NAMBLA

Jennings inspired by Hay, "who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America ... the Mattachine Society." Peter LaBarbera, president of a group that seeks to "expos[e] and counter the homosexual activist agenda," published a transcript of Jennings' 1997 remarks at the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's (GLSEN) mid-Atlantic conference that LaBarbera said was reprinted from the Lambda Report. In that speech, Jennings said, "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society." Jennings' remarks include no mentions of NAMBLA.

From LaBarbera's transcript of Jennings' remarks regarding Hay:

One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society [the first American homosexual "rights" group]. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before. Everybody thought Harry Hay was crazy in 1948, and they knew something about him which he apparently did not -- they were right, he was crazy. You are all crazy. We are all crazy. All of us who are thinking this way are crazy, because you know what? Sane people keep the world the same [sh*tty] old way it is now. It's the people who think, 'No, I can envision a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?' Or straight kids say, 'Hey, why don't you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?' That if we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward. To not lose our faith, to not lose our belief that the world can, indeed, be a different place. And think how much can change in one lifetime if in Harry Hay's one very short life, he saw change from not even one person willing to join him to a million people willing to travel to Washington to join him. You can see the same changed happen in your lifetime if you believe you can.''

Obituaries described Hay as helping pioneer gay rights movement -- just as Jennings did

Hay broadly recognized as gay rights pioneer. Upon Hay's death in October 2002, numerous obituaries (retrieved from Nexis) noted that Hay was a pioneer of the American gay rights movement -- just as Jennings noted in his 1997 speech:

  • NYT: Hay "founded a secret organization six decades ago that proved to be the catalyst for the American gay rights movement." The New York Times wrote on October 25, 2002: "Harry Hay, who founded a secret organization six decades ago that proved to be the catalyst for the American gay rights movement, died early Thursday morning at his home in San Francisco. He was 90. Although little known in the broader national culture over the years, Mr. Hay's contribution was to do what no one else had done before: plant the idea among American homosexuals that they formed an oppressed cultural minority of their own, like blacks, and to create a lasting organization in which homosexuals could come together to socialize and to pursue what was, at the beginning, the very radical concept of homosexual rights."
  • AP: Hay was "a pioneering activist in the gay rights movement" who founded "the Mattachine Society." The Associated Press wrote on October 25, 2002: "Harry Hay, a pioneering activist in the gay rights movement, died Thursday, according to family members who said he had suffered from lung cancer. He was 90. Hay, among the first to argue that gays represented a cultural minority, devoted his life to progressive politics and in 1950 founded the secret network of support groups for gays known as the Mattachine Society."
  • SF Chronicle: Hay "considered by many to be the founder of the modern American gay rights movement." The San Francisco Chronicle wrote on October 25, 2002: "Henry 'Harry' Hay, considered by many to be the founder of the modern American gay rights movement, died Thursday at home in San Francisco at age 90."

The obituaries made no mention of NAMBLA.

Washington Examiner links Jennings to Bill Ayers -- for writing foreword to book decrying anti-gay violence

Washington Examiner links Jennings to Ayers. In his October 1 Washington Examiner column, Tapscott connected Jennings to Bill Ayers, writing:

Roman provides damning details and links here. She also notes that Jennings wrote the forward "to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket -- Bill Ayers." Ayers, of course, is the Weather Underground bomber from the 1960s who is just an "acquaintance" of Obama.

Jennings' book foreword decried anti-gay violence. Jennings wrote the foreword to the 1999 book Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling. In the book, Jennings called for valuing "every human being as a precious gift" and looked forward to the day when students could "walk down our streets without fear." The Washington Examiner did not mention the content of Jennings' foreword, choosing instead to create a link between Jennings and Ayers.

From Jennings' foreword:

jenningsfwd1

jenningsfwd2

jenningsfwd3

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
        2
      I think the only way this stuff about Jennings could really bother anyone is if they think this bureaucratic entanglement of government officials actually have any impact. I mean Jennings is the Deputy Assistant Secretary, that means first there is a Secretary, then his or her assistant, and then his or hers deputy assistant. I'd like to know what they actually do in their positions that have any direct benefit to kids in school, except go to meetings and attend elite Washington cocktail parties and talk up their departments.

      That is the reason that all these revelations about Jennings don't phase me in the least and they are just fodder for media talk show hosts. Because who they are worried about, or who they fret over probably aren't worth the time. Any impact they have is probably irrelevant.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (October 02, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
      6  
      This is getting much closer to slander, which can be subject to a lawsuit. These wacko conservatives are so focused on smearing someone, they aren't aware of that fine line that shouldn't be crossed.

      I expect to hear this move into the legal arena soon.

      Stay tuned.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
        1 6
        Huh? What exactly is slanderous that would jumpstart a lawsuit? I mean I know liberals think lawsuits are the answer to everything, but you do have to have some legal grounds besides being just really ticked off.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (October 02, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
          6 1
          I mean I know liberals think lawsuits are the answer to everything,

          Liar. Please stop using that lie. Because it is a lie. And nobody likes liars.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
              7
            I am only going by recent events. Don't like critics of ACORN - sue them. Don't like critics of Jennings - sue them. And that's only the last couple weeks.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Disputed Zone (October 02, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
              8  
              In a brief visit to FreeRepublic, I saw posts enouraging Glenn Beck in taking legal action against a website that makes fun of him, Sarah Palin in threatining the blogger who alleged the Palins were divorcing with a lawsuit, and Vicki Iseman in suing the NY Times for reporting that she had an affair with John McCain.

              I guess conservatives think lawsuits are the answer to everything.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
                  7
                Point taken. I was just going by the cozy love-affair liberals historically have had with trial lawyers. So when they can throw some business their way in even some silly manufactured lawsuit like this one would be, they like to do that.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (October 02, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
                  7  
                  I was just going by the cozy love-affair liberals historically have had with trial lawyers.

                  Liar. Please stop using that lie. Because it is a lie. And nobody likes liars. Especially repetitive liars.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
                      7
                    Are you trying to tell me that the Democratic party isn't far more politically affiliated with trial lawyers than the Republican party? If so you are either clueless or lying yourself. Anyway, it's off topic, I was just responding to the ridiculous argument that anyone could be sued for libel in this case.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 02, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
                      7 1
                      Are you trying to tell me that the Democratic party isn't far more politically affiliated with trial lawyers than the Republican party?
                      Notice how Tommy just attempted to change the subject. He first said that the "liberals think lawsuits are the answer to everything," and now he has completely morphed his argument into "Are you trying to tell me that the Democratic party isn't far more politically affiliated with trial lawyers than the Republican party?"

                      There is absolutely no connection between one statement and the other. He is merely trying to deflect attention away from his original lie by trying to backpedal it into a quarter-truth at best.

                      Nice try, Tommy. It didn't work.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Ankhorite (October 04, 2009 6:18 am ET)
                      3  
                      Gore chose not to sue in 2000. (If you were too young to vote then, fyi, Gore was the Democrat running for president.)

                      And the Republicans in that election were suing left, right, and all over the place.

                      Observe, for example, failed Republican candidate Norm Coleman of Minnesota, suing, and suing, and suing, long after it was obvious he couldn't win.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by Old_Benjamin (October 02, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
                  6  
                  And how about Bork's love-affair with trial lawyers?

                  http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0723225120070607
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Disputed Zone (October 02, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
                  6  
                  On a creepier note, FreeRepublic uses a libel tag on stories in which someone has said something mean about a conservative hero. One tagged item involves a Weekly World News story on "erotic fiction, written by former Vice President Dick Cheney." It says, "While in office, evidence reveals, Mr. Cheney would often engage in writing erotic stories with strong Conservative overtones."

                  If true, this would likely be the greatest thing the conservative movement has ever done, or could ever do, to promote abstinence.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                    1 5
                    Why you keep bringing up Free Republic is beyond me. I never go to that site because they are wacked out and partisan hacks. If you want to use them to support your arguments fine, it just doesn't hold weight with me. I was simply making an accurate historical assessment of liberals and trial lawyers, laced with a little hyperbole, admittedly.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Disputed Zone (October 02, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
                      1  
                      I just thought it was amusing.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 02, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
                      5  
                      If you want to use them to support your arguments fine, it just doesn't hold weight with me.
                      That would be a good statement, Tommy, if you had any standing at all to be the arbiter of what constitutes a good argument. Your illogical deflections and constant attempts to change the subject of debate disqualifies you from ever being able to attempt to dictate to anyone else how they should frame an argument.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by fabucat58 (October 02, 2009 8:56 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    What kind of erotic stories have conservative overtones? Maybe a story about a male-female married couple having sex in the missionary position, who don't use contraceptives?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Ankhorite (October 04, 2009 6:26 am ET)
                      1  
                      Newt Gingrich wrote a hysterically funny sex scene (which he did not intend to be funny) in a fiction book he published in the 1990's, in which the woman was referred to as a "sex kitten" and was making very silly "you've been a bad bad boy" kind of bedroom chit-chat while kneeling on top of her supine lover's shoulders.

                      It made a big splash in all the major papers, and because of the universal mockery, the scene was cut from the final printing. The title of the book was "1945" and you can see a review here.

                      I think the diminution of a grown woman as a "kitten" and the assumption that there's nothing dirtier or more exciting than a fem domme might be "conservative overtones."

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by ScienceBuff (October 02, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
                  5  
                  I was just going by the cozy love-affair liberals historically have had with trial lawyers. So when they can throw some business their way in even some silly manufactured lawsuit like this one would be, they like to do that. - right ON

                  What I see from that is that liberals are consistent in their support of trial lawyers while conservatives will trash them in speeches and legislation, but hypocritically go running for their services when they think they need to. Well made point, right ON.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
                    1 6
                    They are consistent in their support of trial lawyers because they like the donations to keep them in office. They scratch each other's back. Much in the same way the Republicans do with their historical supporters. Not hard stuff.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ScienceBuff (October 02, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
                      4  
                      I think that's overly cynical. There is some political philosophy involved. Democrats would be prone to see trial lawyers and the legal system as a legitimate avenue of recourse against powerful interests who have harmed those less powerful. Trial lawyers see this philosophy and are therefore more likely to support Democrats for office. I could give an alternative philosophical reasoning as to why republicans would try to weaken trial lawyers.

                      I don't believe that it's as simple as who gives the campaign contributions. Of course, there are some, like those in the health care industry, who make so much money that they contribute to everyone. That's a different matter.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Disputed Zone (October 02, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
                      5  
                      You say it's liberals, not Democrats, who support trail lawyers because of largesse, but it's Republicans, not conservatives, who are in bed with big business. Not exactly fair and balanced.
                      Report Abuse
        • Author by SLRTX (October 02, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
          2  
          Sorry, I was wrong. I meant to say "libel", not "slander".

          If it's a false statement meant to do harm to the targeted person, which this seems to be, it's "libel". And, it may the cause for legal action by Jennings against these right-wing hacks.

          Liberal or conservative - it doesn't matter. Libel is libel.

          Here's the definition of "libel", in case you need to get an idea of why this may move into legal action (from the link below):

          "to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others."

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
              4
            What exactly is the untruth in saying he praised Hay who had supported NAMBLA? If you'd like to be specific in what you think would convict someone of libel, please do so.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by SLRTX (October 02, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
              2  
              We'll see.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (October 02, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
                  3
                I was only asking you to give me a concrete example of what you think warrants a libel lawsuit here. Oh well.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by webprogrammer (October 02, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
              4 1
              Am I the only one who read the whole piece? At no point is there any indication that Harry Hay advocated for or praised NAMBLA. He's even quoted as saying that he was not a member and it would never occur to him to associate himself with it. He founded the Mattachine society, and was in no way associated with NAMBLA. They're lying about Hay, so they can lie about Jennings. I thought we understood by now how to tell when a conservative is lying. If a conservative tells you the sky is blue, you better check because it probably just turned purple. Harry Hay advocated for gay rights, therefore he must have been a pedophile, and that's the conservative cue to start making stuff up. Enter NAMBLA, stage right. I think lying about Hay supporting NAMBLA can reasonably be considered untruth.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Jen7 (October 02, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
                1 1
                According to Wikipedia, he has advocated for NAMBLA, citing a article from The Pheonix.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay
                Report Abuse
                • Author by SLRTX (October 02, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  Anyone here besides me understand the 6-degrees of separation theory????

                  Jen7, (or anyone reading this) I bet you are no further than 6 people from NAMBLA yourself. OMG! We're all linked to NAMBLA! Yikes!

                  It's an old trick people play to link anyone to anyone. These so-called "news" outlets use this trick all the time. Becky-boy uses this trick a lot on his black board. Watch how he does this. You can see he's using the 6-degree theory.

                  It was a speech about Hay. That doesn't' mean Jennings himself was involved with NAMBLA.

                  Pedophiles are pedophiles. Some like the same sex, some like the opposite sex.

                  Just because someone's a homosexual, it does not automatically make them a pedophile. That's another right-wing distortion of the facts.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Jen7 (October 02, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
                    2  
                    SLRTX,

                    I'm the one defending Jennings.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by SLRTX (October 02, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
                      4  
                      My apologies.

                      But the idea's the same. The right-wingers are using the 6-degree trick to link anyone to anyone.

                      Again sorry I misunderstood your point.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (October 02, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
                2  
                I don't know, I just read Wikipedia and it seems clear to me that Henry Hay (not Jennings) supported NAMBLA. The Mattachine Society didn't support NAMBLA, it's true.

                In the early 1980s, Hay joined other early gay rights activists protesting the exclusion of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) from participation in LGBT social movements, most noticeably pride parades–arguably the most visible signs of LGBT culture–on the grounds that such exclusions constituted a betrayal by the gay community.[33] In 1983, at a New York University forum, sponsored by an on-campus gay organization, he remarked "[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."[49] In 1986 Hay was confronted by police when he attempted to march in the Los Angeles pride parade, from which NAMBLA had been banned, with a sign reading "NAMBLA walks with me."[
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (October 02, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
                1  
                From the first line of MMFA's posting.

                The Fox Nation and The Washington Examiner linked Department of Education official Kevin Jennings to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) based on a 1997 speech in which Jennings praised gay rights activist Harry Hay, who had spoken in support of the organization.

                Harry Hay spoke in support of NAMBLA.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jen7 (October 02, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Look, the bottom line is that the right tried to link Jennings to NAMBLA and make him look like a pedophile. My God! A pedophile can't work for the department of education!!! Fire him!

                  That's their message, no matter how distorted and untrue it really is.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (October 02, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
                       
                    I was correcting the person who said that Hay didn't speak up for NAMBLA. That's the sole purpose of my post.

                    I already understood what the right was trying to do.

                    Has everyone started drinking early today or something? LOL
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by SLRTX (October 02, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
                         
                      Not yet, but hey, it's Friday! ;-)
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 02, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                      3  
                      I was correcting the person who said that Hay didn't speak up for NAMBLA.
                      He didn't. He protested their exclusion from a Gay Pride parade. Period. Not the same thing.

                      And Jennings praising Hay for founding the Mattachine Society has nothing to do whatsoever with pedophilia, unless, like the tighty-righties, one believes the lie that more gays are pedophiles than straights.

                      Jennings praised a man who stood up for gay rights. This is the same crap they're trying to do with all the Jeremiah Wright horse manure. They take a few sentences out of nearly thirty years of sermons, and scream bloody murder that a man who served America in the United States Marine Corps hates his country.

                      It was a tactic that was lower than pond scum then, and it's still lower than pond scum now.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pongotwistleton (October 03, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                          3
                        Jennings praised someone who spoke in favor of pedophiles. End of story. For speaking in favor of pedophiles, Hays is pond scum. For not realizing that, you're a nimrod.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by rockforteking (October 04, 2009 7:16 am ET)
                          1  
                          Well, I can praise Michael Jackson for his music. Does that make me a pedophile? I'm speaking in favor of one, aren't I?

                          (This is assuming that he did it. I'm not trying to start an unrelated debate to MJ.)
                          Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (October 02, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
      6  
      Let's say that WPE Bush dies. At a memorial to him (as though I'd ever be invited, but just for this exercise) I speak well of his efforts to bring relief to the spread of AIDS in Africa. Would that mean that several years later someone could look at those comments and assume that I was then a fan of him and endorsed everything he did? Of course, not. That would be idiotic, just as is the weak association that conservatives are attempting to make with this Jennings/Hay thing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 03, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
        1  
        Correct. That is an apt analogy. It would certainly be acceptable to praise G-Dub for the good things he had done and not to crap on him about all his stupid choices he made.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bizarro (October 02, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
        3
      My gay friends laugh at the notion of "gay rights". They ponder,"Did we get seperate water fountains when I wasn't looking?"
      But hey, people like to be heard and be a part of a movement. No harm no foul.
      As far as Jennings goes, my gut reaction is.... nambla? ewww.
      Hay and Jennings who?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (October 02, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
        8  
        Either your gay friends don't remember history, or they've just become used to the gains made since the 1969 Stonewall riot.

        http://manhattan.about.com/od/glbtscene/a/stonewallriots.htm
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Calfed (October 02, 2009 11:36 pm ET)
            1
          Praising Hay, who unquestionably supported NAMBLA, was a serious error in judgment. When you combine that with Jennings failure to report an incidence of gay pedophilia, it does lead to wider questions of Jenning's fitness to be the "safe schools czar".

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/
          Report Abuse
    • Author by DrTruth (October 03, 2009 7:48 pm ET)
      2  
      For all my friends who are Christian, bearing false witness is prohibited by the Ten Commandments.

      As well documented by this blog, Mr. Jennings did not endorse the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) and is not a member of that group. Mr. Jennings in fact honored Harry Hay, who co-founded the Mattachine Society, the first enduring LGBT rights organization in the United States, in 1950. See Wikipedia.

      Now if blog logic holds, then President Ronald Reagan is a supporter of NAMBLA, because Mr. Reagan's campaign manager was Robert Bauman. Mr. Bauman was also a founding member of several conservative activist groups, including the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and the American Conservative Union (ACU), where he served both as national chairman. Mr. Bauman went to the House of Representatives where he regularly warned against the dangers of gay people and the homosexual conspiracy. Then, Mr. Bauman was arrested and convicted for soliciting sex from a 16-year old youth. So, if Mr. Reagan made Bauman his campaign manager, then Mr. Reagan must have had a secret agenda to promote man-boy love and so must the organizations of Young Americans for Freedom as well as the American Conservative Union. Of course Mr. Reagan did not have such and agenda and neither does Mr. Obama.

      By blog logic, one could even say that the Catholic Church had a secret pedophile agenda, since Mr. Bauman was a married conservative Roman Catholic with four children when he solicited gay sex from the 16-year old youth.

      It is also important to note that the media did not fully report the story. The young man Mr. Jennings spoke to was not 15 but 16. That was a legal age of consent at the time in Mass. Does Mr. Jennings regret the way he handled the situation at the time as a young teacher? Yes, as he has said even as the one who made the events public.

      Now all of us should be very, very careful about people who make big noises on blogs, in the media and politics about gay people and pedophilia. This study and the actual facts of public record show why:

      Adams, H. E., L. W. Wright, Jr., et al. (1996). "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?" J Abnorm Psychol 105(3): 440-5.

      The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

      Now this finding should be of no scientific surprise, given the public record. Think of these examples from the news:

      Douglas Sovereign Smith, a former high-ranking Boy Scouts of America official who ran a task force that worked to protect children from sexual abuse, pleaded guilty to a federal child pornography charge. Smith was a national program director and led the Youth Protection Task Force that was supposed to shield youth from sexual abuse. Was this a fox in the Hen House? This Boy Scout big shot was caught with a stash of pornographic photos of young boys, which he swapped with other cyber-smut collectors, said authorities.

      For a quarter century, the man who was Spokane's mayor, James West, had secretly used positions of public trust – as a sheriff's deputy, Boy Scout leader and powerful politician – to develop sexual relationships with boys and young men. He has spent his entire Republican political career actively calling for bans against homosexuals. He was covering up his own his improprieties.

      So any time a person rails against the gays and pedophilia, you might want to insist that they have their penile circumference measured looking at dirty pictures of gays and kids. The safest way to keep attention from yourself is to accuse others of your very crime.
      Report Abuse