Sodomy 101

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:R7ydne6auLEyhHzZnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:1bOdneDxy6sQTULZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:mZidnaf8QvOeOEPZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:OsadnfoyDoY3EkPZnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
:
Snip

No. But why would a sex education class, for instance,
exclude the homosexual perspective?
You need to ask why? Goddamn you're an idiot Kane.
Your a common sick bigot.
Touché.

The reason why it should be excluded is for the simple fact
that fags and dykes don't practice the normal biological
means of sex/reproduction.
You claim falsely that I won't debate,
Nope. Most of the time you will not. It's just attacks, attacks,
attacks. I don't really care, but don't try to convince us that
I've lied because you are about to engage.

yet here I answer the question
you posed about sex education excluding homosexual
perspectives,
Which proves I've lied and falsely claimed you won't debate?

What a dip ****, boy.

and you
attempt to lead the article away to philosophical drama.
You're a
regular drama queen aren't you?
Nope. It's a valid question. If you are going to claim that
making babies is the only "norm" in sexual behavior then YOU
have to prove that it's true for heterosexuals. My question goes
to that issue. No drama involved.

I'm bored, so I'll play.
So you finally decide to debate because you are bored. What does
that tell you about YOUR claim that I falsely accuse of you not
debating?
Heterosexual get pregnant every time they have sex?
Of course not, the world's population would significantly
exceed six billion if females became heavy with child with each
copulation.
And you claim I diverted. R R R R R ...

I can
guarantee though, that two females won't become pregnant
without the assistance of a male, no matter how hard they try.
Yep.

(Exclusive of modern
science's intervention, that isn't natural)
Only "****ing" for pregnancy is natural? So, is the sperm used
artificial then?

and as for two males, well
even science won't currently help a male carry a fetus to term.
Nope, so they adopt.

Is adoption outside your concept of "natural?"

Not mine. People have been adopting before recorded history no
doubt. Caring for the young of others sans the bio parent.
Usually taken by wolves or a large cats. Or trained police
killer dogs. 0;-

As for
the male and female couple, even they have to hit the correct
hole with the correct tool, something fags and dykes can never
do.
Well, going back around to the beginning...sex is only for
procreation, or otherwise it's "unnatural?"

Homosexuals don't love each other even when not having sex?

With a bulk of marriages ending in disconnect, I would venture
a guess that many people don't love each other as much as they
once believed they did, but that's all philosophical anyhow.
Well, out of both populations there is a contingent that do not
"disconnect." Apply my question to the real population not one
you are busy making up.

Any reasons why fag and dyke biologically faulty lifestyles
should be discussed in a sex education class Kane?
Well sure, since they aren't "biologically faulty." Making love
has human biology somewhat involved regardless of the sex of
each member of the couple.
All your hot air and the best you could come up with is a lame
'making love' bit.

LOL
You find love lame do you? And making love lame? Aren't we talking
about sex here?
No, I am not talking about the emotion love; I am discussing the
physical act of sex between a male and a female, the way animals
evolved to reproduce. It is not called love education, but is
properly entitled sex education.
Yep. And your question was?
No question was posed by me. I simply stated something you seem to
opportunely overlook, sex education, not lovemaking 101 nor even
psychology 101 where you may better deal with the abnormal behavior
of fags and dykes.


The sole purpose of sex is to procreate a species thus ensuring
the survival of the species and to allow a diverse genetic pool
to carry on positive traits.
Nope. The sexual connection is directly supportive of also caring
for that young and the mother while the child is dependent on her.
No? LOL. You can say that with a straight face too I bet.
Of course.

We were
discussing sex, remember, the physical act of copulation, not the
emotion love or caring.
Oh, you now are going to define the argument as though it existed
before your definition in that form? Cute. No one limited it to
"sex."
The 'argument' was defined by its very nature and from the beginning,
SEX education, not behavioral biology or behavioral psychology which
is much more suited to the abnormal behavior of fags and dykes.

People can and people do have plenty of sex and
procreate without any emotional bonding.
Yep. I don't approve of it particularly.

Which would include caring for the adoptive parent, one for the
other, during the same time. Sex makes a strong bond, among
emotionally healthy people.

Why don't you know this already?

Fag and dyke 'sex' doesn't perform either function and is
therefore useless and faulty for the survival of a species.
Nope. Both can either have or adopt children, and their loving
bond, including sex, keeps them connected, just as it does with
hets.
We are discussing the physical act of copulation, not love or
emotional bonds that are not dependant on sex.
"We" are? Odd, I was discussion the context for sex that includes
love. "We" can discuss whatever "we" want in this debate.
Then you would be discussing the psychology of sexual behavior, which
is better taught in psychology or behavioral biology, not SEX
education.

Do you love your mother? Are you
bonded closely with her? Your sister? Your best childhood friend?
Did it require you to have sex with them to love and care and bond
with them? I bet not. So, they are not connected but mutually
reinforcing.
You seem to have it backwards. I didn't say that to HAVE a
connection one must have sex, but that SEX makes a connection in
emotionally healthy human beings. Seems to be true for most mammals,
though not all, and most birds, but not all.

Do you always confuse this easily?
I'm far from confused. You seem to be the one that is confused, we
are discussing sex education, not behavioral biology or the
psychological processes of that which leads to copulation. You have
yet to say anything with substance as to why abnormal behavior should
be taught in a sex education class instead of advanced classes of
behavioral biology or even psychology.

Simply stated, a penis is designed to enter a vagina, not an
asshole, and rubber dicks don't belong in a vagina.
Whatever floats your boat, Bruce.

And as for your lame statement above in regards to 'making love',
we are talking about sex education classes, not love making
classes, so again I will ask you to stay on topic and debate WHY
you believe fag and dyke behavior should be taught in sex
education class.
Because it's sexual behavior?
It is not biologically normal sex.
Oh? Then animals that exhibit sexual behavior towards members of
their own sex are not biologically normal? Since when?
They exhibit abnormal sexual behavior. Since all time. The fact that
the sexual organs are used in other ways than as intended by nature
is prima facie evidence that it is abnormal.

Cows, for instance, will mount other cows that are in heat.
They will mount the bull if he is available in the same pasture,
which is usually not the case. Besides, they are not stimulating
each others clitoris are they?

Is bestiality sex?
Yes.
It is abnormal behavior.

Under your broad
umbrella it is, so that should be taught also?
It should be taught, yes.
Yes, in an advanced behavioral sciences class, not sex education.

You are assuming that whatever is taught is approved of.

Not in any sex education classes I've ever heard of. Most have
strong warnings about deviant sex.

This teaching is according to age level of course.

Give me a real thoughtful answer instead of your topic twisting
**** and maybe,
I don't twist topics, child.
Funny, you have said a lot but have yet do give a solid reason why
fag and dyke behavior should be taught in sex education classes.
Yes I have. It's one of the many kinds of sexual behavior that fall
well within normal human behavior patterns.
You said it yourself but you are to blind or stubborn to see it. It
is 'sexual behavior', abnormal though, and should be taught in
advanced behavioral sciences. Not general sex education classes.

I have not, though, approved of the "course" that was listed here as
controversial. Or did you miss that?
Well I really don't care what you approved of, are you the approval
master?

In fact, the vast majority of gay people I know would not approve of
it either, for that age level.

just maybe it will become a debate/discussion instead of line
after line of **** that isn't cutting to the bone of this matter,
sex education and fag/dyke unnatural behavior.
You mean you are losing the argument because yours come from a
hate filled perspective and mine does not?
This discussion, not argument was over the moment it began.
You have a problem with power struggles, don't you, Mikey my boy?
No.

Sort of have to be in control, up to and including defining the
argument for others to make you the winner, rather than debate on
merit of argument. Cute.
Nice try to cover your exposed ass, Kane. The discussion is defined
by itself, sex education, not abnormal behavior in humans' class. I
have debated and made the reasons very clear, you have danced around
and now try to twist the matter into definitions, it is and has
always been sex we were discussing, not abnormal behavior, which is
best taught in advanced sciences class.

Sex is
male/female between the same species and its role it to procreate.
All else is deviant behavior by choice, not designed by nature.
Naw, you don't really mean that. Do we eat for pleasure? Sure we do.
Some people eat foods I couldn't stomach, not even to watch them,
but far be it from me to force them to watch me eat beef (yum yum)
if it offends them.
Dancing again? We are on sex, not cuisines.

And as far as I know no queers require you to watch them have sex.

Do we take drives for the fun of it, or is travel abnormal if it's
not to transport ourselves and or our cargo from one place to
another?
Dance! Travel now? Stick to the topic, SEX EDUCATION.

Nature lets us make up our own minds.

For you it would be abnormal to have sex with a male, presuming you
really are one.

Fine, don't.

Personally I find all sex kind of funny and grotesque, but that's
the charm.

Homosexual sex I find slightly repugnant, but then I'm not terribly
interested in it.

I am interested in exposing bigots. Is that abnormal of me?
I don't think it is, but we are discussing sex education, not hunt
the bigots.


Snip

If you've ever masturbated YOU sir, are a homosexual.
LOL

What fag/dyke dictionary did you look to for that definition?
I don't know there is such a thing. Logic is all I used.
Your logic is as flawed as ever then.
Nope. You made a claim that homosexual behavior is "abnormal." Your
reason being it's not "natural," yet it is perfectly natural in
nature, and in humans.

It's certainly not artificial.
But it certainly is abnormal; remember where the penis goes and what
happens when it's there at the right time of the females' cycle?

Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex, when you
masturbated what was the sex of the person you were pleasuring?
LOL. I'm so glad you asked! I always thought of my hand as being
Sally Palm and her five sisters, nothing gay there. It was self
masturbation, not sex.
Bill Clinton had similar ideas. "I didn't have "sex" with that
women, no. She just gave me a few blow jobs and I moistened my cigar
a little."

We laughed then. And I'm laughing now.
Bill Clinton was as deluded as you. Sex education, not Bill
Clinton's memoirs.

LOL

Masturbating oneself has absolutely no bearing on attraction to
others of the same sex.
But aren't you repulsed by the male body as a sex object?
Repulsed at my male body as being sexual? No.
You like your male body? But isn't that the essence of
homosexuality?
LOL. Maybe in your book it is since you believe that masturbating
makes one gay! I like my male body, after all it is mine, and the
abnormal behavior arises when someone wants to **** the various
orifices of another of the same sex.

Repulsed at other males
who desire to **** some other males asshole that nature designed
for removal of **** from the body? Goddamn right.
That's nice, then don't **** them.

Goddamn regular einsteindyke aren't you.
Never met one. Being male I could not be a dyke if I wanted to.
Is it unnatural when a person masturbates?

Your argument is about as brilliant as your claim to have two
killers dogs trained at a Police Academy. (Maybe the movie, but
not in real life, dummy.)

So, now that you are over your boredom...we can hope, what's
your next argument that "homosexual sex" is unnatural?

Even other animals do it in nature. We are just another animal,
just a bit smarter, except for the occasional scooter rider.

0:-
You sure been sucking up that homophobic propaganda big time. Any
chance you might be a frightened latent homo yourself?
Not a chance, Kane. I've only been with females of my species and
have no desire to **** assholes of other males, not even the
assholes of females.
Some males do. Is that unnatural?
Abnormal.

It's always fun to expose a vicious lying self deluding bigot,
Michael.
Expose? All you had to do is ask if I was a bigot.
All I had to do was read.

And yes, as defined
I am a bigot, as I do have 'very strong opinions'.
That is not the definition of "bigot."

"big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
(bgt) n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race,
or
politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Egad, a HOMO can be a bigot. R R R R R R R

Looks like you are brothers, and sisters under the skin, eh, Mikey
Boy?
Looks like your bull dyke is showing through.

Thanks for the laughs.
Thank yourself!
I do. All the time. Exposing bigots is great fun.

That line of yours where you stated that jacking off
made you a fag was precious!
I thought you'd like it. You must have. You bit.
Now if you would only bite on the original subject instead of dancing
to avoid a fact that you aren't willing to admit. Sex education is
not the place to teach abnormal behavior.

Damn near as funny as Greg's post about
Betty considering herself a gem plucked out of the manure pit by
CPS!
Odd, that wasn't what she said.

But then you, Greg and a few others here have a wonderful way of
seeing only what you want, rather than what is.

Like homosexual behavior being unnatural.
Abnormal.

What shall we do with all those animals, and people of course, that
exhibit this 'unnatural' behavior then?
Abnormal. Not teach their abnormal behavior in sex education classes
for one thing.

I'm told that it's pretty universal that it feels natural to them.
By the way, you got two things wrong.

Anal sex is not the most prevalent of male homosexual acts, nor is
using a dildo on one's lesbian partner.

Women, they tell me, are not nearly so invested in vaginal
penetration as the number one thrill men think it is for them.
Your nit picking again to avoid the real issue.


But then, what do I know. I just listen to others tell me what they
think and feel, rather than trying to tell THEM what they think,
feel, and mean.

You should try it...though I caution you, it's really difficult to
maintain one's prejudices when you actually listen to others.
Why should abnormal behavior be taught in lowly sex education classes
instead of advanced behavioral classes?

Eagerly awaiting a reply.
Define "abnormal" please.

Abnormal

o Adjective deviating from what is normal.

- DERIVATIVES abnormality noun abnormally adverb.

- ORIGIN Greek anomalos 'uneven' related to ANOMALOUS.


Normal

o Adjective 1 conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. 2
technical intersecting a given line or surface at right angles.

o Noun 1 the normal state or condition. 2 technical a line at right
angles to a given line or surface.

- DERIVATIVES normalcy noun (chiefly N. Amer.) normality noun normally
adverb.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary



I suspect you knew already the definition of abnormal, and as well you
see how heterosexual sex is normal 'conforming to a standard; usual,
typical, or expected' whereas fag and dyke bed games are not 'conforming
to a standard; usual, typical, or expected'. Therefore they are
abnormal.

You have expressed and opinion not shared by all. In fact there is a
very large number that disagree with you.

Still have a solid reason why fag and dyke 'abnormal behavior' should be
taught in sex education class instead of behavioral biology or
psychology classes?

Yes. I do have a solid reason. It's scientifically a fact that it is not
"abnormal," but rather a social sanction claiming abnormality.
Authoritative sources, professional, academic, and even in the penal
system, disagree.

Up until broad based research was done on the subject, almost all
available material came from the study of mentally ill, prisoners, and
those dealing with the fallout of society's sanctions against homosexuals.

Much has changed, but not bigotry, as yet.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm

Still waiting for your reply.

When have I not replied?


Good evening, Kane.

As to your various questions.

1. I do not approve (and stop playing word games with my replies...you
asked me opinion, I'm giving it) of explicit sexual behaviors being
taught to 5 year olds...the original premise of this thread. Stay on
subject if you wish ME to.

2. I do not think there is anything wrong with 5 year olds being made
familiar with males and females being attracted to (liking each other)
each other.

3. I don't approve of explicit heterosexual behaviors being taught to
five year olds either.

4. I agree in part with your chronology of when to teach what, but NOT
where to teach what. There is no reason teen agers, and in fact,
probably junior high/middle school children being taught more explicit
sexual behaviors.

5. Parents can opt their children out of these classes. That includes
those for 5 year olds.

6. The current climate of explicit sexual exposure that children are
subjected to in these times via both print and visual media, the
Internet, etc. requires we NOT go around with our head in the sand
trying to keep our children ignorant and innocent and "pure."

This simply will not work. They need correct information, as
scientifically based as possible.

7. The argument that homosexuality is either nature, or nurture, is
bogus and a sure indicator that BOTH should be considered.

I believe, and there's more and more hard evidence over the years, that
conditions in utero, genetic factors, as WELL as environmental factors,
determine one's sexual preference.

You have strong opinions otherwise, but you do not call forth any real
authority to support your position.

8. And finally, love (attraction and attachment) does play a major part
in sexuality. YOU simply don't think so. Millions of others do. I'm one
of those. Sex education without it is not something I want taught.

Take your bullying and shove it. YOU don't get to define this issue for
the rest of humanity. Only for yourself. So don't bugger and don't let
yourself be buggered.

And don't let your five year old attend a sex ed class if you don't want
to. No one is forcing you.

0:-





0:-





0:-
Sweet dreams, Mikey Me Boy.

0:-










--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane,
If you think people here are bigoted, keep pushing
for gay sex ed in schools and you will see that
the hostility you see here is NOTHING compared
to what you will see in reaction.

This is an issue where the more you push
FOR gay sex ed, the more you will see
a strong public reaction.

Even heteros who would otherwise be in favor of
gay marriage may well turn against you on both issues.

Some heteros with a live and let live attitude
will feel imposed upon by the whole issue
of gay sex ed.

Greegor wrote:
Kane,
If you think people here are bigoted, keep pushing
for gay sex ed in schools and you will see that
the hostility you see here is NOTHING compared
to what you will see in reaction.

Gee, should I feel threatened?

What makes you think I am "pushing" for it. You ignore my posts
contents, hide them from other readers by not attributing them to cite
them, then pretend I said something I did not.

This is an issue where the more you push
FOR gay sex ed, the more you will see
a strong public reaction.

Yeah yeah yeah, and we live in a republic, with representative
democracy. One state can do what it wants. Just as the others can. Some
will opt for broader sex information, some for less.

If you don't like it, lobby, threaten you state reps, and stop
pretending to claim that you care, unless you do use the democratic
process.

Even heteros who would otherwise be in favor of
gay marriage may well turn against you on both issues.

It's not up to me. And I did not push for anything. Go back and read my
post.

Some heteros with a live and let live attitude
will feel imposed upon by the whole issue
of gay sex ed.

Yaddahdah yaddahdah -- the threats of bigots are always overblown. They
are a tiny minority, actually.

But loud, pushy, and willing to lie, as you just did about me. Point to
where I am "pushing" anything, Greg. Do it, stupid.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
Kane,
If you think people here are bigoted, keep pushing
for gay sex ed in schools and you will see that
the hostility you see here is NOTHING compared
to what you will see in reaction.

This is an issue where the more you push
FOR gay sex ed, the more you will see
a strong public reaction.

Even heteros who would otherwise be in favor of
gay marriage may well turn against you on both issues.

Some heteros with a live and let live attitude
will feel imposed upon by the whole issue
of gay sex ed.

http://www.katu.com/stories/88476.html

August 16, 2006

Hillsboro Passes Sexual Discrimination Ban
VIDEO


Watch this story
TOOLS
Email this story to a friend
Printer-friendly Version
By KATU.com Web Staff

HILLSBORO, Ore. - The Hillsboro city council passed a law banning
discrimination based on sexual orientation Tuesday evening.

The law joins Hillsboro with a dozen other Oregon communities that have
passed similar laws.

The state of Oregon bans discrimination based on race, religion,
ethnicity and gender, but not on sexual orientation.

The city council passed the law after testimony from several local
residents who claimed their sexual orientation put them at risk of
losing their jobs, or being denied service at restaurants.

There was no opposing testimony given.

One couple was reportedly not able to buy a mattress at a Hillsboro
store because of their sexual orientation.

Other residents said they were surprised to find they could be
discriminated against after they moved to the area.

In Hillsboro City Hall chambers Tuesday night, supporters of the new law
gave city council members a standing ovation when the final vote
signaled the law had passed.

Portland, Beaverton, Salem and smaller towns like Lincoln City,
Corvallis, Bend and Eugene have similar ordinances.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

"0:-" wrote in message
news:04qdnWUj547v2n7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Kane,
If you think people here are bigoted, keep pushing
for gay sex ed in schools and you will see that
the hostility you see here is NOTHING compared
to what you will see in reaction.

This is an issue where the more you push
FOR gay sex ed, the more you will see
a strong public reaction.

Even heteros who would otherwise be in favor of
gay marriage may well turn against you on both issues.

Some heteros with a live and let live attitude
will feel imposed upon by the whole issue
of gay sex ed.

http://www.katu.com/stories/88476.html

August 16, 2006

Hillsboro Passes Sexual Discrimination Ban
VIDEO

So what - a bunch of faggots succeeded in pushing their disgusting sexual
perversion on the rest of society -

Soon it will be a felony to say fags aren't 'gay' - lol Butch- you folks
crack me up



Watch this story
TOOLS
Email this story to a friend
Printer-friendly Version
By KATU.com Web Staff

HILLSBORO, Ore. - The Hillsboro city council passed a law banning
discrimination based on sexual orientation Tuesday evening.

The law joins Hillsboro with a dozen other Oregon communities that have
passed similar laws.

The state of Oregon bans discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity
and gender, but not on sexual orientation.

The city council passed the law after testimony from several local
residents who claimed their sexual orientation put them at risk of losing
their jobs, or being denied service at restaurants.

There was no opposing testimony given.

One couple was reportedly not able to buy a mattress at a Hillsboro store
because of their sexual orientation.

Other residents said they were surprised to find they could be
discriminated against after they moved to the area.

In Hillsboro City Hall chambers Tuesday night, supporters of the new law
gave city council members a standing ovation when the final vote signaled
the law had passed.

Portland, Beaverton, Salem and smaller towns like Lincoln City, Corvallis,
Bend and Eugene have similar ordinances.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Van den Berg was fined and given a suspended prison
sentence for molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987

Even a first timer here in the USA would get prison, right?


http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=2202895

Dutch Court OKs 'Pedophile' Political Party
Dutch Court Refuses to Ban 'Pedophile' Party, Which Is Seeking to
Legalize Sex With Children
By MIKE CORDER
The Associated Press
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - A Dutch court refused Monday to ban a
political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent
from 16 to 12. The judge said it was the voters' right to judge the
appeal of political parties.

The party has only three known members, one of whom was convicted of
molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. Widely dubbed the "pedophile"
party, it is unlikely ever to win a seat in parliament. The group would
need around 60,000 votes, and pollsters estimate it would get fewer
than 1,000.

Opponents had asked The Hague District Court to bar the party from
registering for national elections in November, arguing that children
have the right not to be confronted with the party's platform.


"Freedom of expression, freedom ... of association, including the
freedom to set up a political party, can be seen as the basis for a
democratic society," Judge H. Hofhuis said in his ruling.

"These freedoms give citizens the opportunity to, for example, use a
political party to appeal for change to the constitution, law, or
policy."

He noted that the PNVD party, the Dutch abbreviation of Brotherly Love,
Freedom and Diversity, had not committed a crime, but was calling for a
change in the law.

"It is the right of the voter to judge the appeal of political
parties," he said.

The party sparked outrage when it proclaimed its existence in late May,
but prosecutors declined to prosecute its members as a threat to public
order.

"We expected this result," said party treasurer Ad van den Berg, 62.
"We are not doing anything illegal so there is no reason to ban us."

Van den Berg was fined and given a suspended prison sentence for
molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. After his background became known
last month, he was chased from the trailer park where he lived in the
city of Oostvoorne.

Anke de Wijn, an attorney representing the party's opponents, said the
group was abusing Dutch tolerance.

"Victims feel hurt by the wish of pedophiles to make their desires
known in public," De Wijn said. "There are few limitations on free
speech, and that's good, but this group is making misuse of the
privilege, to provoke."

The PNVD's known members were a president, a secretary and a treasurer,
as required under Dutch law. In order to stand in elections scheduled
for Nov. 22, it will have to submit a list of candidates and the
signatures of at least 30 supporters to get on the ballot in any one of
the country's 19 voting districts.

Ireen van Engelen of the Solace Foundation, which researches
pedophilia, said the party likely would fail to register for the
elections because pedophiles seek anonymity.

"They will never want to connect their name to the party and without
the signatures they can't go in the elections," she said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

Greegor wrote:
Van den Berg was fined and given a suspended prison
sentence for molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987

Even a first timer here in the USA would get prison, right?


http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=2202895

Dutch Court OKs 'Pedophile' Political Party
Dutch Court Refuses to Ban 'Pedophile' Party, Which Is Seeking to
Legalize Sex With Children
By MIKE CORDER
The Associated Press
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - A Dutch court refused Monday to ban a
political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent
from 16 to 12. The judge said it was the voters' right to judge the
appeal of political parties.

The party has only three known members, one of whom was convicted of
molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. Widely dubbed the "pedophile"
party, it is unlikely ever to win a seat in parliament. The group would
need around 60,000 votes, and pollsters estimate it would get fewer
than 1,000.

Opponents had asked The Hague District Court to bar the party from
registering for national elections in November, arguing that children
have the right not to be confronted with the party's platform.


"Freedom of expression, freedom ... of association, including the
freedom to set up a political party, can be seen as the basis for a
democratic society," Judge H. Hofhuis said in his ruling.

"These freedoms give citizens the opportunity to, for example, use a
political party to appeal for change to the constitution, law, or
policy."

He noted that the PNVD party, the Dutch abbreviation of Brotherly Love,
Freedom and Diversity, had not committed a crime, but was calling for a
change in the law.

"It is the right of the voter to judge the appeal of political
parties," he said.

The party sparked outrage when it proclaimed its existence in late May,
but prosecutors declined to prosecute its members as a threat to public
order.

"We expected this result," said party treasurer Ad van den Berg, 62.
"We are not doing anything illegal so there is no reason to ban us."

Van den Berg was fined and given a suspended prison sentence for
molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. After his background became known
last month, he was chased from the trailer park where he lived in the
city of Oostvoorne.

Anke de Wijn, an attorney representing the party's opponents, said the
group was abusing Dutch tolerance.

"Victims feel hurt by the wish of pedophiles to make their desires
known in public," De Wijn said. "There are few limitations on free
speech, and that's good, but this group is making misuse of the
privilege, to provoke."

The PNVD's known members were a president, a secretary and a treasurer,
as required under Dutch law. In order to stand in elections scheduled
for Nov. 22, it will have to submit a list of candidates and the
signatures of at least 30 supporters to get on the ballot in any one of
the country's 19 voting districts.

Ireen van Engelen of the Solace Foundation, which researches
pedophilia, said the party likely would fail to register for the
elections because pedophiles seek anonymity.

"They will never want to connect their name to the party and without
the signatures they can't go in the elections," she said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
Van den Berg was fined and given a suspended prison
sentence for molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987

Even a first timer here in the USA would get prison, right?

Really? Your proof being?

We are far too lenient to child molesters.

It goes with YOU folks claiming that if we got tougher they'd just kill
their victims to shut them up.

Of course, all those "missing children" we hear about ...

Kane





http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=2202895

Dutch Court OKs 'Pedophile' Political Party
Dutch Court Refuses to Ban 'Pedophile' Party, Which Is Seeking to
Legalize Sex With Children
By MIKE CORDER
The Associated Press
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - A Dutch court refused Monday to ban a
political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent
from 16 to 12. The judge said it was the voters' right to judge the
appeal of political parties.

The party has only three known members, one of whom was convicted of
molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. Widely dubbed the "pedophile"
party, it is unlikely ever to win a seat in parliament. The group would
need around 60,000 votes, and pollsters estimate it would get fewer
than 1,000.

Opponents had asked The Hague District Court to bar the party from
registering for national elections in November, arguing that children
have the right not to be confronted with the party's platform.


"Freedom of expression, freedom ... of association, including the
freedom to set up a political party, can be seen as the basis for a
democratic society," Judge H. Hofhuis said in his ruling.

"These freedoms give citizens the opportunity to, for example, use a
political party to appeal for change to the constitution, law, or
policy."

He noted that the PNVD party, the Dutch abbreviation of Brotherly Love,
Freedom and Diversity, had not committed a crime, but was calling for a
change in the law.

"It is the right of the voter to judge the appeal of political
parties," he said.

The party sparked outrage when it proclaimed its existence in late May,
but prosecutors declined to prosecute its members as a threat to public
order.

"We expected this result," said party treasurer Ad van den Berg, 62.
"We are not doing anything illegal so there is no reason to ban us."

Van den Berg was fined and given a suspended prison sentence for
molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. After his background became known
last month, he was chased from the trailer park where he lived in the
city of Oostvoorne.

Anke de Wijn, an attorney representing the party's opponents, said the
group was abusing Dutch tolerance.

"Victims feel hurt by the wish of pedophiles to make their desires
known in public," De Wijn said. "There are few limitations on free
speech, and that's good, but this group is making misuse of the
privilege, to provoke."

The PNVD's known members were a president, a secretary and a treasurer,
as required under Dutch law. In order to stand in elections scheduled
for Nov. 22, it will have to submit a list of candidates and the
signatures of at least 30 supporters to get on the ballot in any one of
the country's 19 voting districts.

Ireen van Engelen of the Solace Foundation, which researches
pedophilia, said the party likely would fail to register for the
elections because pedophiles seek anonymity.

"They will never want to connect their name to the party and without
the signatures they can't go in the elections," she said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Pasted from another thread.

Angry parents who lost their children to CPS showed up at a school
board meeting and dropped what was to be the political equivalent of a
Nuclear Weapon...

I've found some interesting reading in my e-mail the other day, a lot
of
unhappy people in Central Arizona all of a sudden, especially on the
School Board.. Ben Ness
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I'm writing to let you know about something Interesting that is
happening in Coolidge, Arizona. it was recently learned that Child
Protective Services has conducted dozens, if not hundreds of illegal
interviews without a search warrant of children in school without their



parents or attorneys being present, the parents had no prior
notification that their children would be interviewed by the
authorities....


the Principal at Hohokam School in Coolidge, Arizona. confirmed that
CPS has been conducting these interviews for years and he was unaware
that it was a violation of the constitution until angry parents who
lost
their children to CPS showed up at a school board meeting and dropped
what was to be the political equivalent of a Nuclear Weapon...


one of the children's parents address the Pinal County school board
at a meeting held on Wednesday August the 9th 2006 in Coolidge and
asked
the following question of all parents in the room "would you want your
child interviewed at school by the police, child protective services or



anyone else, without your knowledge, permission or you being present?"
of course everybody said no! then one of the other parents said it
can't
happen it's illegal! at which point the person addressing school board



said that's right! so why was it done to my children? he then told
them what the Vice principal at Hohokam had told him, Then all Hell
Broke Loose!!!!


He also remarked that he did not appreciate arizonas Child Protective
Services using the Constitution of the United States as Toilet Paper
in a time of war, while the good Men and Women of our Armed Forces are
Fighting and Dying for It...


The Pinal County School District is about to become one big lawyer
Feeding Ground!


this is a direct violation of the Constitution as reaffirm by the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Doe v. Heck...


Note: IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR DCF TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION IN
ANY
HOME AND INTERVIEW A CHILD WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (IMMINENT
"PHYSICAL" DANGER) OR PROBABLE CAUSE.


This also applies to the Illegal Interviews done at public school
without the parents knowledge.


Question: How is a child in "imminent physical danger" when the child
is at school?


The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003



US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and



Child Protective Services ("CPS") investigations of alleged child
abuse
or neglect are conducted. The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals found that the practice of a "no prior consent" interview
of a
child will ordinarily constitute a "clear violation" of the
constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative
interview of a child constitutes a "search and seizure" and, when
conducted on private property without "consent, a warrant, probable
cause, or exigent circumstances," such an interview is an
unreasonable
search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child,
and,
possibly the owner of the private property.The mere possibility or risk



of harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that
would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a



child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)A due-process violation occurs
when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on
a
"best interests" analysis that is not supported by the requisite
proof
of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)
End Note.


While Arizona is within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction,
the Constitution of the United States still applies to all 50 States
equally...


But wait, there is more, he then hands out copies of this document
which
can be found at the House Ways and Means Committee website...


C.P.S is targeting specific families with limited set budgets, where
child removal is commonly practiced for personal financial gain.


http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...e=view&id=2296


House Committee on Ways and Means


Statement of Cynthia Huckelberry, Redlands, California, and Sushanna
Khamis, Yucaipa, California


OVERVIEW OF NEGATIVE IMPACT RELATED TO THE CURRENT CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICE PROGRAM/REVISED:


Child Protective Services was designed to protect children and aid
families that are in need of assistance in order to maintain the family



unit. Unfortunately, today we are finding that C.P.S is targeting
specific families with limited set budgets, where child removal is
commonly practiced for personal financial gain. The lack of compassion
exhibited by C.P.S caseworkers towards the impoverished children that
they serve, further devalues their lives in the eyes of these
caseworkers. Thus indicating, that a lack of understanding and caring
related to the circumstances of these financially challenged families,
creates further dissention, prejudicing these C.P.S workers from the
very people they serve.


Within this document, the information provided will serve as an insight



into the true source of the problems that plagues C.P.S today. Also, it



will provide possible solutions that may be utilized to best serve a
new
restructured Child Protective Service Agency.


HOW C.P.S LEGALLY REMOVES CHILDREN FORM PARENTAL CUSTODY


C.P.S systematically removes children from their families, whom do not
meet the criteria for removal, through vague and ambiguous
interpretation of their own codes and policy and procedures. They are
able to operate in this manner by selecting specific target groups.


The target groups that C.P.S has tagged are the poor, disabled,
elderly,
and the undereducated. Parents/guardians unfamiliar with the law, with



limited or no financial means to secure impartial unbiased legal
representation, blindly trust the courts. Therefore Child Protective
Service is able to manipulate the court system to secure foster care or



adoption status of these children for profit.


Example: Each child placed in foster care has an annual value of
$30,000.


More monies are available, up to $150,000 dollars per child, for those
that meet the special needs criteria. After 24 months- during the
concurrent foster care /adoption process, placement becomes final,
where
upon an $8,000 dollar bonus is dispersed to the county from the State.
This bonus money is then divided amongst individuals that enabled the
adoption process to be completed. This is not necessarily a positive
solution for these children, but a personal financial gain to workers.
Thus, this leads us to believe that some of the decisions made by C.P.S



officials serve only as a means to enhance their personal budgets.


Upon removal, C.P.S creates a plan for reunification that is designed
to
promote the family's failure. These case plans do not allow the
families the time needed to comply nor do they have the financial
resources needed to meet the court assigned criteria. Unbeknownst to
the families, the courts, lawyers, and C.P.S workers falsely interject
foster care criteria when family criteria should be utilized. Workers
may also place long-term program demands on the parents that purposely
overrun the 24-month time period.


This then allows the state to complete the adoption process to outside
individuals.


In other cases, failure to protect -WIC 300b was cited to obtain
removal
of the children, when the custodial parents acted protectively, in
accordance to the law, after a crime was committed against one of their



children. Currently all children from these cases remain in
"protective
custody" under the authority of C.P.S.


FAMILY COURT CUSTODY REMOVAL - PARENT ALIENATION SYNDROME


Let it be known, that Family Court officials regularly remove custody
of
children from one parent to another (usually mother to father), citing
parent alienation syndrome. C.P.S agrees to serve as the tool to enable



custody transfer, a corrupt process observed by the FBI. Where, in
truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in family court under
the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse or conflict of
interest related to the right to privacy laws. FBI Agent/Lawyer Brenda



Atkinson- San Francisco can verify this information by calling her at
(415) 553-7400.


Child Protective Service also submits false documentation so as to
provide a supportive basis necessary to substantiate their decisions.
Thus the truth is purposely obstructed altered or omitted to justify
case plans.


In many cases, C.P.S has failed to investigate additional outside
reports from various professionals and agencies such as children's
physicians, police agencies, school system, etc.


WHY DOES CPS SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVE CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND
PLACE THEM IN FOSTER CARE?


Since Clinton enacted the adoption and Safe Families act in 1997, this
has lead to widespread corruption within the child Protective Services
Agency and outlying neighboring agencies. By systematically removing
children from predominantly poor families, C.P.S is able to secure
foster care/ adoption status for these children with little or no
parental encumbrance.


Thus C.P.S victimizes those families that have no means available, to
properly investigate C.P.S corrupt activities directed at their family.



Since Federal and state matching funds generate the budget for C.P.S,
the single means utilized to elevate the budget is to increase foster
care and adoption caseloads.


Bonus incentives for adoptions are currently $8,000 per child. $4,000
is
given to the foster parents and another $4,000 is placed in a general
fund, to reward workers for completing their job duties. Workers in
this county, state that they do not personally financially benefit from



this fund. Thus it leads us to believe, that other neighboring
agencies
are benefiting form this fund, in return for deceptive practices that
support C.P.S decisions.


BABY TRAFFICKING


False Allegations of drug abuse have been logged against mothers and
their newborn infants as a means to place these infants into protective



custody. The hospital staff has allowed C.P.S to remove infants (a
hospital violation) prior to verification of blood and urine drug
screen
tests. C.P.S is mandated to secure verification of drug allegations
via
blood and urine results, prior to removing the newborn infant from the
hospital. All cases known to us resulted negative for the mother and
the newborn, but these infants were never returned, and were adopted
outside of kinship.


In the past year, the FBI has arrested and imprisoned C.P.S workers who



were actively involved in baby trafficking for profit. These C.P.S
workers knowingly abducted infants from the hospital where they in turn



networked them into legal adoption agencies. Augustus Fennerty, FBI
director for Crimes against Children (Washington D.C) can verify this
information. (202) 324-3000


CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY


Southern California FBI District has videotape recorded CPS workers
placing foster care children onto planes via LAX, destination Europe
for
child sex trade industry. This can be verified through Ted Gunderson,
(retired) FBI Director Southern California (310) 477-6565.


SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN FOSTER CARE


For the families in relation to our group in San BernardinoCounty, it
has come to our attention while comparing similarities, that
approximately half the children in foster care have been molested.


These children were not sexually abused by their parents, but by the
foster fathers or others in the foster home. It was also noted that
these foster homes are still operating in the same capacity prior to
complaints, without any investigation into these allegations. C.P.S
officials were made aware of these accusations by the children, but
failed to follow through with a criminal investigation.


In conclusion, Child Protective Service is nothing more than an
"oasis''
for child molesters, to make a profit, while at the same time
committing
a crime, only to be protected by a malignant system that delivers a
never ending supply of victims


SYSTEMATIC FRAUDULENT MANEUVERS UTILIZED TO ENHANCE C.P.S BUDGET


* C.P.S manufactures multiple nonexistent /fictitious abuse case
scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information.


* C.P.S concurrently processes these children from foster care to

adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form
of
bonuses.


* C.P.S provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts
(commissioners, psychologists, monitors, court mandated behavioral
class
instructors, court appointed legal counsel), in order for them to
financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system.


* C.P.S victimizes innocent impoverished families, draws them
into


a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for commerce.


MALICIOUS OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES


* C.P.S is utilized by family court officials, as an adverse tool

to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to
"parent alienation syndrome".


* Where, in truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in
family court under the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse



or conflict of interest related to the right to privacy laws.


* C.P.S utilizes coercive measures to persuade parents to submit
to
statements of prior alleged abuse, when these actions were nonexistent.



In other words, forcing desperate parents to "plea bargain" to a


C.P.S fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster
care.


* C.P.S fabricates portions of investigations, where such duties
have never been physically performed, to purposely mislead or direct a
case.


* C.P.S knowingly abandons children into foster care, conscious
of


the fact that some foster care parents and or individuals in the home
physically and sexually abuse the children in their protective custody.



* C.P.S intentionally fails to prosecute parents accused of child

abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been
committed.


* C.P.S represents themselves in positive personas, by omitting,
altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or
government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly
grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well
being of children.


* C.P.S ignores crimes committed in foster care, such as the
atrocious acts of unexplained deaths.


* C.P.S fails to question these individuals for their abusive
conduct, whereby, if it were not a foster care parent, these
individuals
would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


SHOULD CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE BE RESTRUCTURED?


The police should determine if a child has a true need for protection
from his parents, since child abuse is a criminal offence. Thus, C.P.S



should be incorporated with Crimes against Children Units that are
currently located within police, sheriffs and FBI agencies.


The merging of the two would reduce the amount of false allegations
reported, since complaints made to a police unit is a criminal offence.



Also, the police have the training and resources needed to conduct a

thorough investigation. This allows them to determine that if a crime
has been committed that warrants the need for foster care.


A parent/guardian under the suspicion of the crime "Child Abuse"
would
meet the criteria for removal. This would activate the foster care
system. Only then would the foster care system be utilized as a
response to a possible or suspected crime.


Thus in turn, this would eliminate the unnecessary utilization of the
foster care system that has been grossly misused in the past.
Unwarranted victimization of children and their families would be
greatly reduced and soaring costs would be contained. This would
minimize the number of future cases that fall through the cracks and
get
lost in the system.


WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE SOCIAL WORKERS PLAY IN THE NEW CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICE?


* All caseworkers must have a bachelor's degree in social work
from an accredited college.


* All states must create bachelor level licensing for social
workers.


* All workers must have a current license to work within any
state


or county in the United States with reciprocity.


* All social workers must have a preceptor for at least three
months prior to individual casework.


WHO SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM WITHIN THE
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNITS?


Other members from various agencies should be inclusive to this unit,
since they bring their specific expertise to complete a proper
investigation. It is our opinion that the following individuals who
should comprise this team are as stated: Registered Nurse, School
Principal, Detective, and Social Worker.


SHOULD AN OUTSIDE AGENCY SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEW THE CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICE TEAM'S PERFORMANCE?


All agencies must have an outside quality control board that monitors
case investigations on a random basis and when requested by the public.



This Board must include members similar to the Child Protective
Service team, with the addition of an individual from the public. No
member may be employed more than three years, to maintain the integrity



of the boards' unbiased decisions.


SHOULD WE MAINTAIN A CHILD ABUSE INDEX LIST?


The child abuse index list shall be maintained only when an individual
has been prosecuted and convicted by a court of law for a crime against



a child. Today's said list shall be destroyed, so as to prevent harm
to
those currently listed who have been accused of a crime against a
child,
but that have never been prosecuted or convicted. And, children should
never be placed on any list that would categorize them in an adverse
manner, such as this.


SHOULD THERE BE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO FOSTER CARE?


There should be a limited number of children allowed to be placed in
any
single home under foster care, including adoption. No single family
shall be allowed to adopt or provide foster care to more than two
children at any time. The only exception shall be when siblings number
more than two and are placed in the same single dwelling. This will
eliminate the financial incentive for monetary gain related to housing
foster children and adoptions.


Redlands, California 92373
Yucaipa, California 92399
July 12, 2004


U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0542


To our Honorable U.S. House of Representatives,


It is unfortunate that Child Protective Service officials have mislead
the government into believing, that increased funding is necessary to
solve the multitude of problems that encompass C.P.S. This agency is
utilizing the funding issue as the scapegoat for their problems, when
in
actuality the workers themselves, the lack of their personal
accountability, are the source of the problem. Further funding will not



solve C.P.S'S current crisis, only the restructuring of this agency
will
provide a solution.


Sincerely,


Cynthia Huckelberry


Sushanna Khamis


by the way the angry families websites
can be found at the cps experience


http://www.thecpsexperience.com/new/


and


Nightmare in America


http://nightmareinamerica.com/