lol...you obviously don't read this blog very often. I actually suggested he resign.

Do you mean to say we should change the law that you are guilty until proven guilty all together or just on crimes against children?

At least he wasn't a liberal senator. I mean its one thing when a liberal talk show host does it, but when a senator does it, that brings shame to his party, leaves a scar on the office for which he represents, and completely betrays the public trust.

Ok urban, what say you?

You suggested he resign, but only because he lied about his actions. So i guess you condone them after all...

"The issue with me is not that he is or isn’t gay. I’m more upset that this so-called Senator does not have the courage to admit it! He is a hypocrite and this sickens me."

Suburban Moderate,

Pedophilia is different than homosexuality you dumb bitch! Pedophiles are gross disgusting pieces of scum. The urban conservative is not being contradictory by "condoning" homosexuality and condemning pedophilia like you mention.

Do you not condemn pedophiles, suburban?

"Your" a bitch...,

Your reasoning is on par with your command of English. You're assuming a lot of stuff that just isn't there. I'm simply pointing out that Urb-C (as we call him in da burbs) is making it look like he suggested Craig resign because he doesn't condone his behavior ... when his post clearly states that his only problem with Craig is that he lied about it. So, I'm just asking ... which is it?

Sure I know that Urb-C could have meant it differently, but I'm just busting balls over how it looks.

And where does it say, imply, suggest, infer, or overtly state anything about my opinion on pedophilia? Of course I'm against it, but I don't see how daring to question the author about his comment suggests that I wouldn't be.

Do you not condemn jumping to conclusions ... wait, don't answer that.

I just happened to notice the link to your MySpace page and decided on a lark to have a quick look around. I have to say, I was shocked to see Law and Order SVU listed as one of your favorite TV shows. Did you know that the conservative website, Parents TV (parentstv.org), awarded it Worst Show of the Week just a couple months ago? Let me quote directly from the article:

"On December 31st, NBC finished off its 2007 prime-time season with a shameful episode of Law & Order: SVU.  The episode, entitled “Avatar,� originally aired October 2nd and assaulted the airwaves once again this week.  Giving detailed depictions of computer-generated sex acts involving teenage girls, the show did nothing more than generate prurient interest in the sexual possibilities of online virtual lives.  This endorsement of one of the most dangerous uses for the internet has earned SVU our pick for Worst of the Week.
 
In the episode, police investigate the case of a missing girl.  They discover that the victim has a secret life online, in which she plays a 14-year-old schoolgirl with pigtails who has her own strip club.  Virtual pedophiles (who represent real men) gather around her club and watch sex acts.  One scene depicts the virtual young girl giving a lap dance to one of the pedophiles.
 
The plot of this episode is completely overshadowed by a clear advertisement for virtual reality websites.  It clearly displayed the possibilities for promiscuous and deviant sex acts for young and old, male and female. The sexuality depicted and the irresponsible promotion of these sites makes Law & Order: SVU our pick for Worst of the Week."

I found several other negative write-ups about similar SVU episodes; there's quite a few of them on the net. Now, as a Law and Order (original flavor) fan from way back, I've always tried to give the franchise's spinoffs a chance -- but after watching a couple episodes of SVU, I began to find the storylines increasingly manipulative and exploitative -- even deliberately prurient -- and thus had to cross it off my list of acceptable TV viewing.

The show's graphic dialogue -- in which actors describe adults committing violent sexual crimes against each other and against children and young teens -- is apparently justified in the name of realism, thus providing plenty of moral cover for a viewer's attraction to these sordid sagas.

Naturally, the audience is encouraged to identify with the good guys--the righteously pissed-off police men & women who, as professionals just trying to do their job, simply can't avoid discussing in explicit detail their perp du jour's litany of deviant sexual proclivities. It's unpleasant duty to be sure, and the writers make it clear that our heros don't enjoy it: in one episode, one of the squad members was compelled by a superior to talk with a department shrink about his feelings in the aftermath of a case in which a pedophile murdered a four-year-old. And talk they did.

But they have to talk about it, right? If they don't, how can they investigate the creeps and bring them to justice? To have any hope at all of catching criminals, of course they need to interview suspects and their victims and discuss their findings among themselves in gory detail. The viewer, of course, is constantly reassured that these cops -- despite their countless casual-yet-explicit conversations about the latest despicable sex crime to strike New York City -- these elite crime-fighters really HATE this stuff. They HATE talking about all the ugly details of the crimes they're forced to investigate; it disturbs and incenses them. But the fact remains -- as the writers are forever at pains to remind us -- it's an essential part of the job. An occupational hazard, if you will.

Thus the viewer -- who might otherwise begin to feel self-conscious about his desire to expose himself to such unseemly television fare -- gratefully adopts the cops (a.k.a. the writers') attitude, giving themselves permission to keep watching: Since I clearly hate the bad guys and always root for the good guys then it really doesn't matter how revolting the storylines become or how explicit the sexual details are enunciated; it's okay because, like the cops on the show, I'm on the side of the angels; my interest in graphic tales of sexual kink and predation is no more prurient than the SVU members themselves; that is to say, not in the least. They're just doing what they have to do to get the job done -- and I'm just watching them do it. That's all I really care about anyway, says the viewer to himself, bringing the creeps to justice.

Right.

The writers sure do know their audience, I'll give them that. They know they can't allow them feel uncomfortable about themselves for watching this stuff in the first place, and they know they have to help them, at every turn, maintain a conscious identification with the pissed-off, righteously repulsed, vengeance-filled cops. Each tale of criminal sexual pathology; of rape and molestation and incest -- every twisted scenario of adult-child and/or young teen sexual exploitation imaginable -- is unsubtly designed to point the moral compass at the always pure-of-heart SVU squad members. The viewer -- an undeniable if passive participant in the whole sordid production -- is then free to watch and enjoy the show, not only with a sense of his own moral rectitude intact, but even significantly bolstered! It's not good writing, but it sure is psychologically astute: it's the spoonful of morally self-congratulatory sugar that makes the "incidental" filth go down. Is there another show on television (or anywhere) where watching reenactments and excruciatingly detailed recitations of criminal sexual deviance makes people feel even more morally pumped-up about themselves than they felt before they tuned in? Little wonder the series has lasted so long. What extraordinary self-deception on the viewers' part, and what shameful, cynical ingeniousness on the part of the writers.

Anyway, for such a sophisticated, intelligent man who claims he "hates(s) pedophiles with a passion," it is curious that you would claim this, of all TV shows, as a personal favorite. 'Tis a puzzlement.

Cheers,

Heather...okay, I am not sure how to respond to this. First of all, I missed that episode. Second, I watch Law & Order for entertainment purposes; and while I occasionally get irritated with the liberal slant on the show, I still like it. Based on your last comment, it almost sounds like because I listed Law & Order as my favorite show that I somehow endorse pedophilia in one way or another.

I also like watching Prison Break. Does that mean I also endorse prisoners trying to break out of prison. What about 24? I love watching 24. Does that mean I endorse Jack’s interrogation techniques against terrorists? Well, bad example, because I actually endorse this one.

@ Justin W.J.

only crimes against children. And...crimes against children from anyone (liberal, conservative, senator, the President, talk radio host) should result in a severe beat down every day for the rest of their lives.

Bernie is NOT a pedophile and the Feds know it. Thats why they waited 3 years to go after Bernie. So at least get your facts straight--- and the transcript was fantasy,a "thought crime".

All Bernie said before and after this incident about you cons and your scumbag liar-in-chief and his cronies is and was true, let alone the criminal war in Iraq based entirely on lies and profit mongering. I hope Bernie beats this rap. "Innocent until proven guilty" has no meaning for you lowlifes, apparently, unless its one of your own.

I'm always suspect of the self-righteous and "Christians" who throw the first stone. Lets see how merciful and forgiving the religion of love is.

"Bernie is NOT a pedophile and the Feds know it. Thats why they waited 3 years to go after Bernie. So at least get your facts straight--- and the transcript was fantasy,a "thought crime".

And there you have it folks...straight from Nambla's mouth.

And, then of course bringing up Iraq and the Christian hating rhetoric. Homey, you need new talking points. Take your high school education over to DailyKos and get some new ideas.

"deranged mass of human waste" and "sub-human gargantuan swamp of bird droppings" and "child-loving-overweight-filthy-descendant-of-abusive-elephant-spit"

URBAN - WHERE IN THE HELL DID YOU COME UP WITH THESE ACCURATE SENTIMENTS ABOUT BERNIE AND MARTIN. I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING.

Here is the truth about NAMBLA. Bernie did nothing wrong in our eyes.
______________________________________________

NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual. We support greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust. We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.

We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.

NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so.

We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.

I don't doubt you deplore pedophilia, my friend. I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that SVU's situations and dialogue dip into some of the same subjects, the same wellsprings of deviant fantasy, that Bernie Ward dipped into during his chat sessions with the Oakdale dominatrix.

SVU indulges in extremely graphic sexual discussion and dramatization all the while depicting its cop characters in constant state anguish and vengeful fury. The show's sexual ugliness, portrayed in tandem with nonstop (thematic and characterological) finger-wagging about the godforsaken loathsomeness of anyone who would go near the selfsame sexual ugly stuff that was just depicted before my very eyes, strikes me as not only hypocritical and morally off-kilter, but cynically exploitative of their audience. I mean, the show (that is, the writers and producers) doesn't just go near the filth that they're forever making up lines for their "good" characters to mutter disgustedly about--they delve into it in microscopic detail. They have no scruples; they revel in prurience--but always with a figleaf of moral legitimacy in place. They want to have their shame-on-you purity cake -- and eat their candy-panties too.

Do you see what I mean? Either stop writing about--and forcing your viewers to hear and see--specific, excruciating details of this rape or that molestation, or stop putting sanctimonious words into the mouths of your cop-heros about how despicable it is to fantasize about--or watch TV show writers' fantasies about--rape or molestation or whatever. First they make voyeurs of us, and then, what's worse, what's even more morally twisted and cynical, they try to make excuses for us, pardon us, quell our ostensible guilt, as if a) we're too stupid to realize what they're up to, or b) as if adults need their pathetic excuses anyway.

As for the Bernie Ward situation, here we have the true story (which just might serve as the basis for a SVU episode someday--"ripped from the headlines!") of a formerly well-respected, in some circles beloved, progressive talk radio host who has been indicted for receiving and distributing two or three pictures of children involved in sex acts with each other and/or an adult. His life, professionally and personally, is in a shambles. As we all know by now, he claims to have been doing research for a book during which he inadvertently violated the "letter of the law." Now, I defended staunchly him at first--I've listened to his radio show for years and (don't beat me up) I've loved him dearly--but that was before the chatroom transcripts came to light. I'm not so keen about defending him any more, not because I don't believe he was conducting research of some sort--he may well have been doing just that, I don't know--but because I've decided that whether he (earnestly) was or (halfassedly) wasn't, it was the wrong thing to do regardless. His rationale for the ostensible book project (if there was any project)--a mean-spirited fishing expedition masquerading something noble and good--was ill-conceived from the outset. Hypocrisy is as common as measles; right or left or any place in between, it's not hard to find. He never should have taken it upon himself to go sleuthing about, trying to dig up other people's inconsistencies, when clearly he had plenty of issues of his own to work out. Now I don't give a damn if somebody wants to sex-fantasy it up with some ridiculous online dominatrix--but if he was using her to conduct some bogus "expose" (the scuttlebutt is that by day, she's an outspoken conservative--this, however, is hearsay, so don't quote me), then his heart wasn't in the right place and he ran right off the rails: the would-be stinger got stung--badly, catastrophically. Call it karma. For the moment that's my theory with respect to the actual, documented charges against him and his lawyer's various explanations for his actions (he has not been charged with any actual acts of child molestation).

As for involving his own children in the sex chats, well, what can I tell you. The news devastated me. For that, there is no excuse, nothing to understand or explain. Evidently, the man is seriously unwell. I ask you, in all humility, not to push this particular angle with me too much. I'm sick about it. I trusted this man and in no way did I see it coming. It has nothing to do with ideology; I don't see Rush Limbaugh as the kind of man who'd do something like this, either. If it were Rush in this situation, as I'm not an especial fan doubtless I wouldn't have been so upset by it--but it certainly would surprise me. I'd feel terrible for his family and friends--heck, I'd feel terrible for him, too; for anyone in this situation, so clearly in bondage to some very dark, very deep, possibly intractable soul-sickness. Anybody in the midst of total ruin I couldn't help but feel for.

Anyway, I hope and pray that Bernie and the whole Ward family get the help they need and that they are able to move through this period of time without further calamity--and I don't mean prison. He might well end up there; it's not the worst that could happen. I wish you and your fellow conservatives would tone down the rhetoric a bit, but I realize that that's too much to ask, and that you wouldn't in any case anyway (my "side" probably wouldn't either). Luckily, Bernie isn't allowed on the computer. God, what a complete and utter disaster.

Cheers,
Heather

P.S. I'm so tired now I didn't bother to edit; so sorry if I'm full of typos. Hope it's readable, at least.

By the way, is that a real "Namble" person posting their propaganda here?

Martin,

What a joke. The actual pedophilia hasn't been proven. But by that statement we've proven how the liberal mind works. See for people like you, you actually WANT the pedophilia to happen. So you feel sorry for this guy and you don't want his rights endangered. Oh yea he hasn't touched anyone yet but someone like you will wait until he does. And when this happens the only endagered rights would be that of rights of the minor.

Now what has been proven was that he did exchange 6-7 child porn pictures via email. that is against the law for which he can face 3-5 in the cooler for each picture. Do you want those laws repealed too? Do you want to make it ok for people to do this?

Now let me ask you this. How would you feel if you're daughter or son, niece or nephew was over this man's house and while they were there he was masturbating to their image as they moved about the house?

I hear the terms "liberal mind" and "liberal thought process" bandied about pretty frequently around here. Can someone explain what exactly that means?

Jason Rielly: Hiya.

Well, I couldn't disagree with you more. Martin is right--not only with respect to Bernie Ward (however odious you may find the man), but with respect to each and every American citizen: it is literally a matter of the life or death of our system of jurisprudence and our precious Democratic Republic as we know it and that we unfailingly abide by the principles of law no matter how passionately, in certain situations, we might wish to alter, suspend, or ignore the law in the name of preventing future crimes. We call ourselves "a nation of laws, not men" for a number of excellent, liberty-preserving reasons. The law MUST be applied consistently to ALL citizens or we risk rendering it meaningless, subject to all manner of corruption and subversions of liberty.

For better or worse, even if a person appears as though s/he might be poised commit a crime, the law requires that the crime is actually committed first before we make arrests and/or incarcerate them.

As an aside, I would just like to point out that I don't think an acknowledgment of these age-old, thoroughly American principles (such as Martin's acknowledgment above) can be said to have anything to do with the "liberal mind." The venerable principle of law that Martin cited (innocent-until-proven-guilty) does not find its basis or look for justification in ANY political ideology. It is quite simply a shining cornerstone of American jurisprudence and an emblem of the American way of life and liberty. It is--or should be--a tremendous source of patriotic pride.

Our Founding Fathers--again, for better or worse--decided long ago that, on balance, it was more important to the tenets of liberty on which this country was founded to mitigate against potential false arrest (and by extension, state tyranny) than to attempt to thwart the (often very real) threat of future criminality by peremptorily imprisoning suspicious or even threat-making persons or groups. It is indeed a calculated trade-off: liberty, at the risk of criminal threats being carried out at some point in the future--or preemptive imprisonment, at the risk of corrupt state powers abusing and tyrannizing innocent citizens for their own nefarious reasons (cf. the history of the USSR; cf. communist China). The founders made the decision that the latter situation constituted the greater threat to the free country they sought to create and preserve for posterity (that's you and me, with whom they were expressly concerned). Thus, to this day, citizens of this country are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as determined by a jury of their peers. Of course, as you noted, this can be frustrating with respect to preventing future, potential crime, but still the fathers did not err. Let me explain.

In the Bernie Ward case we have a person who, on the one hand, as far as we are able to know at this point, has not molested any children (he has not been charged with a single count of child molestation); therefore it might be true that he poses no future, potential danger to children whatsoever, and thus if we were to preemptively imprison him now, without evidence, formal charges, or a free and open trial--based solely on certain statements made during ostensible flights of fantasy regarding his future (allegedly fabricated) intentions--we would be committing an act of false imprisonment.

On the other hand there remains the possibility that even though he hasn't molested any children so far (to the best of the public's knowledge at this time)--that based on his statements he does indeed pose a future, potential danger to children and it would be safer to put him behind bars right away. As the law is currently written, however, neither he--nor any citizen in similar circumstances--can be lawfully imprisoned for crimes anticipated but not yet committed.

I understand your frustration, your anger, your heartfelt desire to keep our children safe. I really do. But as difficult as it is--as truly sickening as it can be sometimes--we have to keep the larger picture and principles in mind. We need to remind ourselves of our nation's overarching standards and goals. The founding fathers decided long ago that granting our citizens their innocence until proven guilty--that is, the furthermost expression of the liberties typically extended by free countries--does NOT, on a case-by-case basis, ultimately cause more problems than it solves. They decided that the uniquely American concepts of freedom, liberty, justice and jurisprudential equality must always reign supreme over (legitimate and illegitimate) fears about crimes that may occur if the (ever-corruptible) state doesn't step in and preempt them. They realized, as surely as you must, that that is a sure route to tyranny and despotism, the ruination of our Republic, and a tragic end to the founding father's noble experiment.

This is why it is so important we remain vigilant about the consistent application of the law. Each and every case is like a tiny tile in the great American mosaic that--taken together, when we step back and view the whole--determines whether the picture that we see--a representation of who we are as a nation and a people--is one of valor and greatness, or of corruption and disgrace. However circumstantially exceptional or emotionally "right" the desire for a one-time subversion of justice may feel at the moment, we are ALL OF US called to resist that temptation: for the sake our fellow citizens whose rights we don't want to see violated lest our own rights are next (the smaller picture) and for the sake of our ongoing, national pride and honor (the bigger picture).

I want nothing more than for this nation to be able to hold its imperfect but inherently noble head high. I believe that that's all Martin wants, and you, too, I would assume. Where we differ, I suppose, is on what, exactly, constitutes nobility in a nation state and/or in the hearts and minds of its citizens. I'd be much obliged if you'd share with me your own ideas of what makes America great, as well as anything else you might like to say to me. Thanks for reading.

cheers,

My problem is that when someone is legitimately busted with this disgusting behavior, their hands caught in their twisted perverted cookie jar, they typically don't serve the full 3-5 years anyway. And does anyone have the statistics on the percentage of repeat offenders for this type of crime? I know it is very high.
And the second, third, and fourth offenses are always worse. There is an escalation factor. First time:suggestive disgusting photos, second time: molestation, Third time: rape then murder...

Do we have to wait until this point?

Do we have to wait until more innocent children's lives are destroyed?

I think that if a pedophile must register with the police, if the police must go around the neighborhood warning residents, and if they warrant their own website to track their every move shouldn't the sickos just be in jail?

Come on people!

And that Nambla post! Somebody else better comment about that one.
I think this political correct BS has gone WAY to far. You commit these crimes you waste away in prison for a LONG time.

Maybe these pathetic pigs will start thinking twice about this crap if there is some real prison time being handed out.

Heather, please, if you respond to my post, be concise. Reading through your 'posts' provides little knowledge. Your attempts to take your opinions and transform them into a novel are usually not conducive to having your opinion heard nor understood as it drowns in superfluous words.

My question to you is would you have someone who transpires to commit murder be allowed to commit the murder before action is taken? We have laws regarding intent, otherwise, there may have been many school massacres, far more terrorist activitiies, and an inordinate number of other felonies commited.

Common sense, when did become outdated? More importantly, "Why, and can we bring it back!"

Nice entry. I posted an entry on my blog which I stated the following

Bernie Ward, a corpulent obese and obstreperous blowhard especially enjoyed his strident diatribes against the Bush administration, the conservative and especially the fundamental Christian. He even started his own church on his show "God Talk" thinking it droll and called it, "the Church of the Holy Donut.

You can continue reading by checking the URL
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2008/05/bernie-ward-blowhard-of-left.html

MOST OF YOU ARE SICK SICK SICK BERNIE WARD SHOULD BE LOCKED UP FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. HOWEVER LONG THAT WILL BE WHILE HE IS IN PRISON. HE CAN BE WHATEVER HE IS HE IS STILL A NASTY PERVERATED MAN..... I FEEL SORRY FOR HIS FAMILY

GOD BLESS THEM HIS FAMILY BERNIE IS A pedophilia END OF STORY

THANK GOD FOR MICHAEL SAVAGE WHO SPEAKS UP ABOUT THIS AND LET'S US KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.

Fat Bernie should call it a career and for sure get a new hobby. The man's got some big skeletons in his closet and needs psychiatric help now not later. I don't get the apologists, they just want to lay in the dung with this guy and believe the opposite of what he really is. Would not surprise me in the least if he gets his job back with a promotion, wins an award, then writes his best seller. Yes folks, a new star is born. Hide your children.............

This is simply awful.
Anytime a public figure, liberal or conservative, a model to others, does this kind of thing it's bad for everybody. Bad for the children who get exploited in photos, because it increases demand for such things; Bad for us in the public who use the good works of these people as inspiration to do good things ourselves; Bad for Bernie's co-workers at KGO for the same reason; Bad for Bernie's children who now have to go without their father for years (I wonder what statistics show about children who have a parent go to prison?) and suffer this cloud of infamy...

I think it's wrong to call Bernie a pedophile, because he has not been convicted of such a crime, not even accused as such. But he was in possession of and transmitted those images, by his own admission.

Journalists know the rules. They have to. I find his explanation an insult to my intelligence, and to the profession of journalism. In the unlikely event that a thread of what he says is true, he needs to go to prison ANYWAY.

I have seen child pornography. Fortunately only still photos, because as violent as my reaction was to still photographs, I can't imagine what it would be to video. I almost wretched. When it appeared in my inbox, and I realized what it was, it wasn't 15 seconds before I reported it to the FBI. (Sadly, it was sent from an offshore location, so it has not been easy for them to do anything about it) I think any reasonable person would do the same thing.

There are limits to 'research.' You don't have to make lampshades out of human skin in order to research the Nazis.

I say all these things, and make my harsh (but dignified) condemnation of Bernie's actions regardless of the fact that he saved my life 15 years ago. Perhaps this is why I temper that condemnation with sadness. This kind of thing is just bad, bad for everybody, in all ways, at all times.

"freedom and liberty" are the same. As are deadly and mortal.

The picture was not "of two underage kids touching an adult “in a very sexual way�" but one teen with a kid.

If you'll spend some time on Google, you'll find the [many] sex crimes are almost always on Republican or religionist politicians, especially those on underage targets, so your left-pinning is bullshit.

The God-awful cretins here who worship a fake imaginary friend and worship a hoax are the sickos who should be locked up.

If you'd bother to learn the meanings of words you use, pedophilia refers to kid-friendship; that is, anyone who is a kid's friend is a pedophile, which means these dumb parents. It doesn't even apply to teens. And everyone is a child, so the use of that word as a crime is also bullshit.

It is up to the victims of a crime to say they were one, not some third party gawker or state, and it is up to them to say the fair decision. The blind laws and the pigs who enact them are sick monsters, liars, and shysters; they are the crimes and criminals. They bear imaginary warrant to commit the same crimes they arrest others on; they get to solicit, hold, and show contraband (these cops/FBI and the dom-stool) and are not arrested or punished. Meanwhile the dom solicitd another crime in California, that of anal sex, which the cops flat-out ignore. If Ward's story in the background was all true, then the cops also ignore his children's commissions of sex crimes. Such "crimes" minors commit regularly and normally, against others and themselves. It would not be hard to convict these pigs here and there, who are irrational ageist scum and lust-haters, and their families of these felonies and false arrests of fictional crimes or victims. And these lawful scum look the other way because they would fall too. They only arrest when there is a nonminor, and the nonminor, unless there were a true crime as rape or sexual assault/battery. It is the American delusion* and sham of sexual wrongdoing with youths; there is absolutely no proof for its claims. One of many, in blind giiberish-for-all and hoax-worship.

*Neat, "American delusion" and "pedophiles preying" in the same story; I didn't even look for the latter term: http://radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/5/10/1945893.html.

"If you'll spend some time on Google, you'll find the [many] sex crimes are almost always on Republican or religionist politicians, especially those on underage targets, so your left-pinning is bullshit."

Now that was the lamest BS i have ever heard! You must be a liberal pedophile trying to justify your own evil behavior! Or, maybe you are Bernie himself ....

By "lamest BS" you must mean your mind-filter. Why don't you deal with my points instead of whine?

liberal? No, I hate all parties; I hate everyone and everything. Are you happy? I want to slauhter one-sixth of the world. You may thank me for the storms in Asia and America, the greatly-wrong, chicken-headed scum of the earth.

pedophile? (paidofilè) I'm not the friend of a kid at the moment, so no. But parents and teachers would be, and it's not my fault Americans/Commonwealts are too fucken retarded to learn or speak Hellènic or Latin. The Latinates corrupt the former as well.

evil? I don't believe in evil, any more than a baby-killer free pitbull is, or a (Anne Hjelle) Kristian-biker-lasher mountain lion is evil.

Why is it only the conservatives (Bush, Coulter, councils, netizens, bloggers) who call for freedom (liberty) when it is the premise of the liberal side?

There seems to be so many bw kool-aid drinkers in the bay area. This man was a priest? I seriously doubt he had any interest in being a true man of the cloth, it was simply a cover for his pedophilia. He is a genetic mistake, sick to his bones and has managed to fool so many people. He has broken the law for many years, cannot be rehabilitated, pedophiles never lose their perverted desires, and must serve the full prison term for his crimes. As for the bw kool-aid drinkers, this just goes to show how many people can be fooled and is a poor reflection on our own society.

lpaul

I listened to Bernie Ward for years when I lived in the Bay Area. In addition, his brother used to teach at my High School Alma Mater, Bellarmine in San Jose. Bernie also used to teach an ethics class at one of the local schools.

He was a loon then, he's a loon now.

And to moveon.org, you're a loon too. Go back to your kiddie porn.