Sex, Omission and Protecting Heinous Crime in the Name of Political Correctness
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 05:55PM The AP recently reported the story of a man who allegedly raped his own 5- year old adopted son in Durham, North Carolina. To my knowledge, the AP omitted any reference to the sexual orientation of the perpetuator of this heinous crime.
University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a "perv dad for fun." The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son. .
Outrage in the MSM? I don’t see any. Rape of a child…yawn.
The man accused is identified as Frank Lombard, a prominent health researcher at Duke University. He is a white and gay, and his victim, a 5 year old innocent child, is black.
Just for fun, compare this to the 2006 outrage caused by the false accusation of rape by a black stripper against the white lacrosse team at Duke University. The facts of the stripper's story did not add up but that did not stop the MSM, and the Durham DA, from nonstop outrage against the white lacrosse players. 88 Duke faculty members even took out a full page ad accussing the innocent men of rape and racism.
The silence of the MSM leads me to ask: does protection of gay lifestyle “choices” trump outrage over pedophilia? Anything to protect gay activist agenda, mainstreaming homosexuality complete with child adoption, marriage vows and unquestioned acceptance?
Would the delicate political coalition between blacks and gays be jeopardized if the MSM expressed outrage over this disgusting crime, and would the ability of gay couples to adopt be jeopardized as well?
Apparently so.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (70)
Absolutely appalling double standards by all concerned, from the scum that pass for faculty at Duke and also the MSM for its selective reporting. Those poor kids.
Link doesn't work without pruning, Patty.
DSD - fixed link. Thanks.
I still know lefties who still insist " something must have happened at Duke ". No facts will ever convince them.
--
I had heard of this Lombard case - an advantage of listening to evil talk radio.
I wrote of the possibilities of just such molester adoptions in prior discussions in these pages, and some here were in faux high dudgeon about it. This isn't the only such case
Bathhouses and promiscuity are hallmarks of the male gay lifestyle.
I'm a social libertarian when it comes to the lifestyles of other people, and I really like The Pet Shop Boys, but I believe in honesty and telling it like it is. This is a disgusting, stomach turning crime that should not be covered up.
If the male gay lifestyle is a risky one than adopted innocent children should not be in mix.
"Would the delicate political coalition between blacks and gays be jeopardized"
As this only exists in what you are no doubt pleased to call your mind, I imagine it depends on the sweetie mice who live there.
I await the marches and vigils of the Duke studentsNfaculty just like they did it during the Duke Rape Hoax
Adopted children/foster children face can such horrors from heterosexual couples. Indeed, natural children can as well from their own parents. The World can be an awful place. To suggest this particular individual is representative of all homosexuals is like suggesting Charles Manson is representative of all heterosexuals.
The article you cite is based on an Associated Press story (how more MSM can you get). The story is hardly being buried (Is ABC News still in the MSM?).
Are there even bathhouses anymore? Are gays really more promiscuous than say hetero students on Spring Break?
The Duke Lacrosse case was a travesty, and the District Attorney rightly disbarred. The faculty who signed that petition should have been dismissed for cause (as should Duke's President). And many in the media (mainstream and fringe) tripped over themselves to cover a story that dealt with alleged gang rape, race, and class to their discredit.
The faculty who signed that petition should have been dismissed for cause (as should Duke's President).
For the most part, I bet they are completely unrepentant. And there are plenty just like them throughout our universities.
"To my knowledge, the AP omitted any reference to the sexual orientation of the perpetuator of this heinous crime."
Well, I don't recall them making much mention of the orientation of Josef Fritzl.
I bet Lombard's orientation got at least as much coverage as that.
But nobody asked:
"does protection of [heterosexual] lifestyle “choices” trump outrage over pedophilia?"
Sorry to throw a spaniel in the works people but what has this case in Durham got to do with gay men? Paedophiliia is something completely seperate. There would be no difference if this vile pervert had molested an adopted daughter. I know a few gays and the only thing that turns them on is men...big muscly men. One even wanted to convert me (to no avail, I'm all about the ladies!) but they wouldn't even begin to consider doing something like that to a child.
I also wish that this guy gets a life of pain in jail, but he'll only end up getting segregated from other cons to prevent it. Castration should be an option in cases like this.
"and I really like The Pet Shop Boys"
That was nearly a mouthful of water sprayed all over the monitor, that was...
"Are there even bathhouses anymore? Are gays really more promiscuous than say hetero students on Spring Break?"
Go to the LA2 in the West End any night of the week. That'd be a resounding yes.
Frank, if you seriously think that paedophilia is just as prevalent (on average) amongst 'heterosexually-oriented paedophiles' as it is amongst homosexually-oriented ones I suggest you visit the anti-paedophile site www.absolutezerounited.blogspot.com and do as much research as your stomach will allow. I promise you that you will learn different.
DSD,
"Frank, if you seriously think that paedophilia is just as prevalent (on average) amongst 'heterosexually-oriented paedophiles' as it is amongst homosexually-oriented ones"
I've seen no evidence otherwise - and I don't consider sampling a blog to be much in the way of research.
On the other hand there is considerable evidence that non-biological parents are more likely to abuse children than biological parents, but nobody takes that as an argument to do away with adoption generally. It is a good argument for screening adoptive parents, but then that happens now and should apply equally regardless of orientation.
I can think of at least one pedophile organization ( Man Boy Love Association ) which has openly marched in gay parades in Boston and in other places. There is no heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA. If such an organization did exist, cannot think of any parade where they would be allowed to march.
Well maybe things are different in the States (but I very much doubt it). Here in the UK the MSM particularly the print media do not hesitate at all to express outrage and fury at any story involving the sexual or serious violent abuse of children . I think it is complete nonsense to imply that the media would intentionally wish to hide or not report the vile abuse of a 5 year old boy out of some ridiculous sense of 'solidarity' with gay rights .
Where there is a history of hiding or downplaying child sexual abuse you will find it far more amongst Right wing conservative traditionally religous communities and institutions
"There is no heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA."
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20030624024232411C933180
Ah, Frank
So this organization of yours operates in the US, has addressed public forums, has had political support from some activiists at various times, and has marched in parades. Wasn't aware of that.
"So this organization of yours operates in the US"
My mistake, I thought you were arguing against homosexual adoption.
I see now your beef is with American adoption. An unusual view, and one will that will probably garner even less support than the fringe organisation known as NAMBLA has managed, but I suppose you're entitled to it.
I believe minority babies are easier to adopt (black and brown) than white babies in America because there are more minority babies than parents willing to adopt. (Whites tend to adopt white babies, blacks tend to adopt black babies etc.) I would be interested to see if this is true, and if perhaps these vulnerable children are more at risk.
I don't expect to see the MSM address this issue however. As I said in the post above, gay rights agenda trumps racial issues.
I think women in general do better with babies and little children than men, and I question the wisdom of two men - regardless of sexuality - adopting little babies. Men will be men, afterall - so it's kind of ridiculous to try and convince anyone with a brain that this is not the case -- that bars and bathhouses etc. have somehow disappeared and men are happy staying home changing diapers.
Frank O'Dwyer,
I salute you! By the way, didn't I once overhear you eviscerate Hegel's jejeune notion of History in the Junior Common Room at Trinity...oh, round about 1979/
"I've seen no evidence otherwise - and I don't consider sampling a blog to be much in the way of research."
Seems pretty clear that you dont actually want to see the evidence.
"men are happy staying home changing diapers."
This man is, don't be such a sexist :)
The point remains that NAMBLA is a perverts' club that also happens to be political.. They didn't skulk around the Internet, they met openly and marched openly, in major cities like Boston. They were supported by major figures such as the poet Alan Ginsburg who saw this as part of a larger gay rights cause - and by others ( I can't immediately find verification for an extremely prominent political activist's name, or I'd post it too )
They've become radioactive, which is why you may not see them in the " Gay Pride " marches so much anymore, but they're still around, perhaps waiting to come out as the next human rights/societal deconstruction cause du jour.
There is no hetero equivalent to this political / pedophile organization. If you can find a hetero/pedophile organization that operates openly and that has political support from any quarter, I'll be interested in seeing it. Please document the parades that the SA perverts club has marched in, and the names of the cultural or political actors who support them.
Just as the gay lobby made criticism and closure of gay bath houses impossible when AIDS broke out, the gay lobby now makes discussion of this heinous pedophilia - a gay man with his OWN adopted son! - off limits.
The AP reported it. Did not mention any salient details. And the MSM is silent.
So, the gay lobby allowed AIDS to spread rampantly through total forced disregard of modern methodologies of contagious disease control - and now the gay lobby allows gay pedophiliacs cover to engage in their abhorrent obsessions - by ignoring or disregarding NAMBLA, and by insisting that the adoption of little babies by 2 men is "normal."
It's disgusting and were I gay I would be ashamed and I would work against this disgusting crap.
Unless I am mistaken, the NY Times, the most prominent newspaper in America and the so-called " newspaper of record " has not covered this story at all
Compare with the immense coverage they gave of the rape hoax, day after day after day. It is noted that the NY Times has long been a supporter of the political gay movement in nearly all respects.
This is how news is reported - and not reported - in this country. Agendas are at play.
The Washington Post reported it, the NY Times chose not to report it. That was intentional.
In America, this story is largely being reported by Fox, by local media, and by the blogs. The big boys are largely boycotting it. Its too hot to handle, too sensitive, disturbing to the program.
It's disgusting that our politically correct media sacrifices the small innocent victims of the gay pedophiliac for the gay agenda - which is to mainstream the gay lifestyle so that it has parity in all ways with heterosexual lifestyle (marriage, adoption).
The media - and the gay lobby in general - simply does not care.
They selfishly want what they want regardless of who is hurt, just as the gay lobby (with the media's complicity) made immediate closure of gay bathhouses impossible - a fact which helped spread the AIDS virus far and wide at a time when it could (and should have) been contained.
Phantom - So it is your contention that this vile criminal act is representative of the gay people in general?
No, and have never said as much.
But there are bad fish that swim in that sea, and they've not been that secretive about their desires. I don't choose to close my eyes to it. There was at least one bad priest involved in the Boston abuse scandals who was a member of NAMBLA - openly.
Do you find it unusual in any way that the NY Times would choose not to cover this story in any way? ( unless they've just posted one within the hour )
Well you note that the NY Times has been a big supporter of the gay movement (true), and it would appear by implication you are suggesting this vile criminal was somehow part of the political gay movement.
As for the bad fish in the sea, who is saying they don't exist?
I'm not sure why the NY Times has not covered this. They don't tend to cover non-local crime that doesn't have some sort of national issue or trend. Do you think the editors don't want to cover the story because some vile criminal happens to be gay and they worry that publication would adversly effect the mainstream gay rights agenda? Seems like quite a stretch to me.
Hahaha! You make me laugh, you do!
"They don't tend to cover non-local crime"??? Just google "Duke Rape NYT" and see what comes up.
The NYT is perfectly happy to devote pages of copy to a non-local NON-Crime if it will make a rich white boy look bad. The NYT devoted pages to a rumor of a crime that never occurred.
But a confessed pedophile crime, by a white homosexual -- nothing.
haha! your inability to face the truth of things just makes me laugh.
They are controlling what appears in their news pages not because this isn't a big story - on the face of it, it is at least as large as the Duke rape thing was in the early stages, when it received considerable ink, before it later moved to Page One.
They won't report because of the possible reflection on the issue of adoption of young children by gay males - a phenomenon that many in the US public does not even know even happens. And a practice which is illegal in many of the countries that foreign babies are harvested from.
"They won't report because of the possible reflection on the issue of adoption of young children by gay males"
Exactly. Who cares about protecting small innocent (minority) children without parents? -- gay "rights" trump all.
It's despicable.
The NY Times and other major media was predisposed to believe the Duke rape thing had something to it, and that this more recent incident is " just a one off by some bad guy that means nothing"
Phantom: you give them the benefit of the doubt. I however think that they just don't give a damn.
Phantom - There are differences. The story lacks the elements of race in the same way, race was incidental in the child abuse case, but obviously not in the Lacrosse case. It lacks the element of privileged youth against an alleged non-privileged victim. In addition, the Duke Lacrosse incident was disputed a she said/they said type story. The case involving the child seems to be clear cut and the correct individual faces a deserved prosecution. Therefore, I think the child abuse story doesn't have the same legs as a news story as the Lacrosse story.
Also you seem to imply that children are more likely abused in instances of gay adoption, and I don't think there is any evidence of that. If there was such evidence, and they weren't printing that story, then you would have a point. What is really at work here is not the NYT but the efforts of those who can't abide the idea of gay adoption to portray all gays as a danger. We don't do that when heterosexuals commit crimes against children.
Also, Patty agrees with you, which is the best argument against what you are saying.
It lacks the element of privileged youth against an alleged non-privileged victim
But it has the element of privileged Duke staff against a far more defenseless victim, one presumably from a non-privieged background.
In a far more horrifying, and apparently true set of circumstances.
The stripper voluntarily entered the house,where what she said happened, did not, indeed, happen. The child had no choice in the matter- he had to enter Lombard's house.
A true story did not make the pages, but a case that soon looked false to any fair observer never left its pages until many months had passed.
Mahons: " race was incidental in the child abuse case, but obviously not in the Lacrosse case."
Oh please, Mahons, give it up for once. Race played no part at all in the Lacrosse case because there was NO CASE. The Lacrosse case was a total fabrication.
But this is an actual crime. And the actual victim is black. And the actual perpetuator is white.
Adoption of minority children is easier than white children so race might very well have eased the road for this pervert to adopt.
But we'll never know, will we....the New York progressive represented by the NYT prefers to not look because it hurts the case of their favorite "victim" group.
They just don't give a damn.
Phantom - I am not comparing the two incidents for their horror content. The Lacrosse story, a false rape allegation, was no where near as horrifying as the one involving the child.
The fact that a crime may be horrifying does not necessarily make it newsworthy in the same sense. There have been numerous sexual assaults of children by heterosexuals, does the fact that you and Patty failed to post on it make you complicit in the anti-homosexual political agenda? Does the Times' failure to report on each every case of abuse make it pro-pedophile?
I have written above that the media coverage of the Lacrosse incident did discredit to those who went after it in a predisposed way. There were many signs very early that it was a bogus story. Those who would utilize this assault on a child by a vile criminal who happens to be gay as evidence in support of their arguments against homosexual adoption are clearly also predisposed in their views.
Again, even if it's not a page one story ( according to the paper that prints :" All the News Thats Fit to Print " ). the average edition of the NYT contains many stories. This does not rate one paragraph? There are policy reasons for this.
Mahons: In conclusion, in your opinion, a true story of pedaphilia is not news worthy but a fabricated story of a non existent crime - rumors of which undeservedly ruined lives and reputations - was news worthy.
Did I get this correct? Disgusting if so.
"The Lacrosse story, a false rape allegation, was no where near as horrifying as the one involving the child."
A rumor/lie is not as horrifying as a real confessed crime!?! Say it ain't so!
Does reality ever play a part in the "news" for you - or is it always just some sort of progressive propoganda?
Many will think that way - I heard a number of people say things along the lines of " it did not matter if the Duke rape story was true or not, as it pointed at fundamental racism in US society - it pointed to larger truths even if it was not true in its specifics"
The Duke rape case remains instructive as to the pathology of liberal / racialist thought.
Phantom: yes, the Lacrosse case is instructive into the mindset of the progressive -- but it was never "news."
Notice how Mahons talks of the Lacrosse fabrication as an "incident" above. He actually seems to think that because it was printed, it was true.
And because we are all now brain washed into thinking that we must never criticize the gay couple - especially if they are "brave" enough to adopt a child - etc. Mahons seems to think that the pedophilia case will just disappear. That it's a localized one-off not worthy of discussion. Out of sight, out of mind.
Patty - The Lacrosse rape was a fabrication, but race played a substantial factor in the newsworthy element of the story. I would think that was a fairly easy concept to grasp.
In the child abuse story, we have an example of child abuse, not an example of what gay people do anymore than heterosexual people do. Yet you don't call for the abolition of heterosexual adoption.
The Duke rape thing was news in that it was a serious accusation that led to widespread hysteria and candle light marching and moaning among political blacks, women's studies majors, and the intellectually castrated university leftist professor set.
Phantom - The Duke Lacrosse story is instructive, the rush to take advantage of it among certain members of its faculty, the wrongful dismissal of the Coach and the shameful acts of its President are instructive.
Patty - no, as usual you did not get it correct. Probably through your unique combination of ignorance and arrogance.
Mahons: A fabrication by definition doesn't exist - the newsworthiness of the story was only in the imagination of those making the accusations of racism and rape - like the progressives at the New York Times.
In the pedophilia story, we have a black child put at unnecessary risk by an adoption agency when he was placed with this gay couple. It's newsworthy.
But the men at NYT - and you it seems - don't give a damn.
Mahons: "Probably through your unique combination of ignorance and arrogance."
How about your unique combination of closed-minded elitism and ad hominem cowardice.
hominemphobia?
>>A fabrication by definition doesn't exist - the newsworthiness of the story was only in the imagination of those making the accusations of racism and rape<<
You're wrong there, Patty.
A fabrication not only obviously exists (otherwise it wouldn't be a crime, considered morally wrong or even have a name) but is often, in fact usually is, more newsworthy than many ghastly crimes of violence etc.
Something is newsworthy when it is new and arouses public interest or indicates some other larger development. Just because a news medium reports such a story and fails to report a case of child abuse does not mean it thinks one is a more serious individual matter than the other. It simply thinks one is more newsworthy than the other. Child abuse, like murder, rape, etc. unfortunately take place every day, and as such are not news.
Actually, you should be able to understand this, as just a few days ago you reported on the natural death of Michael Jackson and ignored the hundreds of murders, rapes and child abuse incidents that had taken place that same week. Nobody suggested you "just don't give a damn" about all those terrible crimes.
Man bites dog = news, remember. Even if the dog doesn't die.
Patty - The Duke Lacrosse story was deemed newsworthy by almost every major and minor news source. Even a false allegation can be newsworthy - The Tawna Brawley case is the closest story that comes to mind.
As for the pedophile story, you have correctly identified it finally. It is a story about a pedophile. it is not a story about all gay men, as I am sure any of the Pet Shop Boys could tell you.
As for your implication that I somehow don't care about the child, I'll just consider the source.
It isn't novel or newsworthy when a young child is abused by a " parent " who seeks more abusers to join in the fun via the internet?
And where that abuser is the head of a health facility of a fancy university?
And where that abuser is an adoptive " parent " in what is still a fairly rare, unknown to many, thing ( adopting of an unrelated child by two gay males, something completely illegal in many places )
All this happens every day? Hell of a world we're living in