Misleading description of homosexual child rapist
And that's despite the victim being black. Homosexual perversion must be protected at all costs. And this is from the university that raised the roof with condemnation of the imagined deeds of innocent white Lacrosse players
Over the course of the last few weeks, I have received several requests for an update on the Frank Lombard case. Lombard is the (now former) Duke administrator who was accused last summer of attempting to allow, and even arrange for, strangers he met on the internet to rape his adopted child.
A few days ago, WRAL, a Raleigh-based news station, released an update on the case. That update is worth re-printing here, along with my commentary, both for what the update says and what it does not say:
“A former Duke University employee has agreed to plead guilty to a federal charge of sexual exploitation of a minor, authorities said Tuesday.”Here, the “sexual exploitation of a minor” is not described in any great detail. That is good because the sexual exploitation Lombard inflicted upon his own child is simply too graphic to reprint fully. I have read all of the documentation in this case. It contains descriptions of conduct, which can only be described as sub-human.
“Frank M. Lombard, 42, of 24 Indigo Creek Trail in Durham, will enter the plea in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 17, authorities said. He likely will face 15 years in prison, authorities said.”It is interesting that the first demographic mentioned is age, as opposed to race or sexual orientation. As I proceed with my commentary it may be worthwhile to ask, once again, a question I will ask now: Is Frank Lombard’s age the most relevant demographic variable in relation to the charges to which he agreed to plead guilty?
“Authorities on Tuesday filed a criminal information in the case, indicating that they were negotiating a plea and didn't want to pursue an indictment against Lombard. According to the filing, Lombard coerced a minor, identified only as ‘M.L.,’ into engaging in sexual conduct so that Lombard could transmit a live video of it over the Internet.”And now we have another mention of the “minor” followed by the assertion that the criminal information only identifies the minor as “M.L.” But WRAL knows precisely what the “L” in “M.L.” means. It means Lombard. It is his adopted black son.
But to acknowledge that “M.L” is the son, not daughter, of Frank Lombard is to acknowledge that Lombard is gay. And the Gods of Diversity frown upon the notion that males can be victims of rape and that the perpetrators can be homosexual men. And to acknowledge the race of the victim is to suggest that homosexuals might be capable of committing hate crimes, even if they do not play Lacrosse. Hate crimes legislation is supposed to protect, not prosecute, gay men.
And, finally, there should be no mention (yet) that his son was adopted. The public, when confronted with such information, might use it to form dangerous opinions – such as the opinion that gay men should not be adopting little boys.
According to the news media, the general public is not capable of processing all of this information. People in the news media are the only ones who can be trusted with all of the benefits (and responsibilities) that attach to the full disclosure of information.
“Lombard was arrested in June after authorities said Washington police caught him in a sting operation soliciting an adult to have sex with his adopted 5-year-old child.”This is certainly odd. WRAL finally mentions that Frank Lombard’s child was adopted. But they fail to mention his sex or his race. In fact, the way this paragraph is worded, it is not entirely clear that the incident leading to his arrest is the incident leading to the information – or that it led to any formal criminal charges.
So let me clarify this very sloppy portion of the WRAL release. The child coerced into engaging in sexual conduct on a webcam was Frank Lombard’s adopted black son. Lombard performed oral sex on every portion of the little boy’s body that was capable of expelling human waste. I hope this clarifies any ambiguity. I will withhold further details.
“Duke fired Lombard in July from his position as associate director of the university's Center for Health Policy.”I think we can now see why WRAL has withheld certain relevant information. Lombard was a high-level administrator in the area of health policy. To reveal his sexual orientation would raise certain questions, which might violate someone’s right to feel comfortable at all times. For example, “Are certain sexual practices both detrimental to individual health and prevalent in the gay community?” And, “Could such practices, if widely adopted (no pun intended), be detrimental to the public health?” Finally, “Is a homosexual man the best candidate available to help run a Center for Public Health and teach a course about AIDS at Duke University?”
According to the people at WRAL, and many at Duke University, Frank Lombard is no ordinary white racist. Nor is he an ordinary white rapist. He is gay and entitled to special treatment in the court of public opinion. To refuse to treat him differently would promote hatred and discrimination.
And that would send a dangerous message to small children. Above all else, we must protect small children from danger.
'Freedom of speech' victory as Christian hoteliers are CLEARED of insulting Muslim woman
Aggressive accuser attempts to play the "Muslim card" -- but is unconvincing
Christian hoteliers accused of insulting a Muslim guest for wearing the hijab and berating her for her beliefs were dramatically cleared this afternoon. Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang denied using threatening, abusive or insulting words which were religiously aggravated against white British Muslim convert Ericka Tazi, 60.
District Judge Richard Clancy, who heard the case in the absence of a jury, told the couple that religion and politics was the 'tinderbox which set the whole thing alight and it would appear because of strongly entrenched positions that is what has happened here'. Explaining his reasons for dismissing the case, he said Mrs Tazi's claim that she was verbally attacked by the couple for up to an hour had not been borne out by other prosecution witnesses, who suggested that any discussions lasted around seven minutes.
Judge Clancy also highlighted Mrs Tazi's use of language. When describing how she was provoked by the couple about her hijab she used words to the effect of: 'Would you prefer it if I got my tits out?' He said: 'I mention this because when I read that together with what she said about 'them taking the piss' it doesn't quite form the same religious view that was put to me on the stand'. Judge Clancy said: 'I'm not satisfied on the facts that this case has been made out.'
His decision was greeted by prolonged applause from the couple's supporters in the public gallery. Outside, Sharon Vogelenzang told reporters: 'We've been found innocent of any crime. It has been a very difficult nine months and we are looking forward to rebuilding our business and getting on with our lives. 'We would like to thank all those who have supported us, our family, our friends, our church and Christians all around the world, and non-Christians. 'And as Christmas approaches we wish everybody peace and goodwill.'
Mrs Tazi told the court yesterday that she was left traumatised after being insulted by the couple while a guest at The Bounty House Hotel in Aintree, Liverpool, on March 20. She said they laughed at her when she came down wearing a hijab on her final day at the hotel and shouted at her, saying her Islamic dress was a form of bondage and that she had provoked an argument by wearing it.
Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim 18 months ago, was staying at the hotel while she attended a pain management clinic at Aintree Hospital for her fibromyalgia. She claimed Mr Vogelenzang called the prophet Mohammed a murderer and a warlord and likened him to Saddam Hussein and Hitler. But the couple denied her version of events and claimed Mrs Tazi told them Jesus was a minor prophet and that the Bible was untrue.
Earlier, the court heard how the Vogelenzangs' B&B had suffered as a result of the case. Benjamin Vogelenzang, 53, accused Mrs Tanzi of trying to ruin his business during heated scenes in court. The hotelier raised his voice and thumped the witness box before he was told to behave by Judge Clancy. His 54-year-old wife, Sharon, told the court that takings were down by 80 per cent since they were prosecuted for a public order offence.
Benjamin Vogelenzang told prosecutor Anya Horwood in cross examination: 'At the time I was persuaded she (Ericka) was quite a nice person.' Raising his voice, and thumping the witness box for emphasis, he continued: 'I was mistaken, you know why? She wasn't a nice person, she wasn't a loving person, she ratted to the police and is trying to make us lose our business.' His outburst prompted Judge Clancy to tell him: 'Behave yourself please.' When Mr Vogelenzang returned to the dock to sit alongside his wife he bowed his head and cried.
The court heard that the couple, who have five adopted children and have fostered a Muslim boy, returned to the hotel after a holiday in Scotland three days before the alleged incident on March 20. They learned from the hotel manager that guests had engaged in robust debates about religion over the dinner table, with Mrs Tazi and a self confessed 'happy clappy Christian' taking the lead.
Mr Vogelenzang told his defence counsel, Hugh Tomlinson QC, that, on the morning of March 20, he spotted Mrs Tazi wearing the hijab, the traditional Islamic dress, and told her: 'You look tiny' before walking off. He said that, when he next saw her, she was talking to his wife and told the court he overheard the following conversation: 'Her wording was, in essence, 'I've tried all the religions, I've tried Jesus, it didn't work for me but the Bible is untrue anyway and Jesus is a minor prophet'. 'She called Our Lord a minor prophet. My reaction was 'You haven't prayed alone and asked God to prove himself to you'. 'Because she was a small person I sat next to her and just gently said that to her.'
He admitted that his wife may have referred to the hijab as a form of bondage and said Mrs Tazi replied: 'My husband doesn't even want me to wear it, but I wear it as I love Allah.' He told the court: 'Great, that's fine. At least she wears it because of the love she has.'
Mr Vogelenzang said Mrs Tazi then went off into the dining room and he belatedly went after her to make light of the situation. He told the court he reeled off a list of historical figures, including Caesar, Nero, Hitler, Mao and Saddam Hussein. Mr Vogelenzang said: 'She took the examples of history and she started provoking me by saying 'Oh, will you tell me then that I'm a murderer, that I'm a Nazi? You're telling me I'm a terrorist?' 'I never meant it this way.' He denied shouting at her or referring to the prophet Mohammed as a warlord.
Mr Vogelenzang told Ms Horwood that Mrs Tazi was not in tears but left the hotel 'as cool as a cucumber' and that he had the ability 'not to take offence'.
Mrs Vogelenzang told the court that Mrs Tazi seemed determined to get a response from her about her hijab. She said the guest approached her and said: 'You didn't know I was a Muslim, did you?" The hotelier replied that she had known, the court heard. Mrs Vogelenzang said Mrs Tazi then came up to her and said she 'was still the nice, kind Ericka you know'.
She said she was 'stopped in her tracks' when she heard Mrs Tazi say to her husband that, 'Jesus was a minor prophet and the Bible was not true'. She told her: 'I'm afraid we'd have to disagree with you there. We believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins.'
Mrs Vogelenzang said Mrs Tazi told her: 'It's my choice to put this outfit on' and said she replied: 'I can't understand why you would want to put yourself into bondage.' She explained that she used the phrase 'bondage' because she understood that Muslim women lacked the freedom to make many choices in their lives.
Mrs Vogelenzang also told Mr Tomlinson, her defence counsel, that she went into the dining room after hearing raised voices and, when Mrs Tazi spotted her, 'she charged towards me with her hand thrust up at my face and said 'Get away from me, get out of my face".
Yesterday, Christians gathered outside Liverpool magistrates' court to support the couple.
Mrs Tazi, who suffers from the chronic pain condition fibromyalgia, spent a month at the hotel earlier this year while attending a course of therapy at a nearby hospital. The former Roman Catholic from Warrington, who converted to Islam last year, gave evidence after swearing an oath to Allah and kissing the Koran. She wore a hijab and ankle-length gown in court similar to the outfit she was wearing on the day of the alleged confrontation. She told the court she had worn Western clothes until the final day of her course.
Sarkozy defends Swiss minaret decision
THE French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has voiced sympathy for Switzerland's controversial decision to ban the building of minarets, calling on religious practitioners to avoid "ostentation" and "provocation" for fear of upsetting others. Mr Sarkozy said he was surprised by the widespread criticism of the outcome of last month's referendum in Switzerland, when 57 per cent voted to proscribe the building of minarets in a country that has four, and is home to 400,000 Muslims.
The French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, promptly denounced the Swiss decision last week, saying he was shocked and scandalised and calling for the ban to be reversed.
But writing in Le Monde on Tuesday, Mr Sarkozy defended the Swiss in arguing for the necessity of the contentious debate on national identity he has sponsored in France. "How can you not be amazed at the reaction that this decision has produced in certain media and political circles in our own country," Mr Sarkozy said. "Instead of condemning the Swiss out of hand, we should try to understand what they meant to express and what so many people in Europe feel, including people in France."
He was the first national leader in Europe to offer a detailed opinion on a decision that the Swiss Government has criticised as discriminatory and probably illegal, if implemented. Mr Sarkozy called for discretion from France's 6 million Muslims, the biggest Muslim population in Europe, in their observance of religion, while pledging to fight discrimination.
"Christians, Jews, Muslims, all believers regardless of their faith, must refrain from ostentation and provocation and … practise their religion in humble discretion." Muslims would need to find a way of integrating in France "without conflicting with our social and civic pact" while moderate Islam would fail if Muslims sought to challenge the country's republican value system or Christian heritage.
Mr Sarkozy's intervention in the Swiss case, Europe's first direct vote on Islam, came in the midst of the bout of navel-gazing over French national identity begun by his government last month. "This muffled threat felt by so many people in our old European nations, rightly or wrongly, weighs on their identity," he said. "We must all speak about this together, out of fear that, if it is kept hidden, this sentiment could end up nourishing a terrible rancour."
The French national identity debate is running in tandem with proposals to ban the burqa, and critics argue that Mr Sarkozy's initiative has degenerated into a populist proxy debate on immigration, with the President seeking to outflank the extreme right and steal their votes.
A conference on national identity is to be held in Paris in February after the debate moved to parliament on Tuesday, preceded by town hall meetings and heated internet discussions over the past month.
Next month parliament is also to consider whether the burqa should be banned, and in Marseilles there is dispute over the planned construction of a grand mosque with a 25-metre minaret.
The leader of the opposition Socialist Party, Martine Aubry, says Mr Sarkozy is making a calculated attempt to stir xenophobia by calling for the public debates. Disapproval of Mr Sarkozy's policies has risen to the highest level since his election in May 2007, an Ifop poll for Paris Match magazine found. A total of 61 per cent of respondents in the poll published this week said they disapproved of Mr Sarkozy's policies. That was up 6 percentage points from October.
The Racism of the Black Community
According to allies of President Obama, all opposition to Obama's policies is driven by racism. "We think all of it is!" shouts Gwen Dawkins, a Democratic "activist" from Michigan. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) explains that "As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is." Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) agrees, stating that "There's a very angry, small group of folks that just didn't like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency. With some, I think it is [about race]." As Jimmy Carter famously stated, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."
Apparently, racism must be spreading like wildfire. According to a Gallup poll released this week, only 47 percent of Americans now approve of President Obama's job performance. Only 42 percent of independents approve. In the white community, according to a Nov. 24 Gallup poll, his approval rating has slipped from 61 percent in January to 39 percent. In the black community, his support has actually increased, from 90 percent to 91 percent.
The fact is that it isn't the racism of the white community that explains President Obama's plummeting job approval -- the skyrocketing deficit, unemployment rate and inflation take care of that.
It's the racism of the black community that explains his approval rating's continued buoyancy. How can blacks truly approve of Obama more highly than they did when he was elected? The black unemployment rate is 15.6 percent today, as opposed to 11.9 percent in December 2008, over 50 percent higher than the white unemployment rate. There is no rhyme or reason to the continued support for a man who has driven the economy off the rails. But there is racism.
President Obama fulfills the three requirements to receive the approval of the black community: he is black; he is not currently having sex with a white woman; and he is liberal. And he receives the lifelong and unwavering loyalty of the black community for it.
By contrast, the black community hates another prominent half-black man. This half-black man happens to be a political independent who has sex with white women. His name is Tiger Woods.
Just listen to the black community's evisceration of Woods. Tom Joyner, a syndicated black radio host, ran a parody suggesting, "Thankfully, Tiger, you didn't marry a black woman. Because if a sister caught you running around with a bunch of white hoochie-mamas." Then there's Denene Millner, author of books on black relationships, who writes, "Why is it when they get to this level … they tend to go directly for the nearest blonde?"
There seems to be less consternation in the black community about the fact that Woods cheated on his wife than the fact that his wife is white and his mistresses are white. Nobody in the black community has claimed that Shawn Kemp, the former NBA star who famously sired seven children out of wedlock, is a racial sellout. But according to the Associate Press, 26-year-old black woman Ebonie Johnson Cooper says that Tiger, who has so far fathered zero children out of wedlock, is "quote-unquote not really black." That's because "we still see [Tiger] as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference."
Not coincidentally, Cooper explains, "Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him."
This is a country still torn apart by racial tensions. But those tensions largely spring from the black community these days, not from the white community. It is approval for President Obama that evidences greater racial animosity these days than opposition to President Obama's policies.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.