Would you get P.O.’d  if . . .

1. Your ten-year old son was kidnapped out of your front yard by two pedophiles and then taken to a taxpayer funded public library and shown, via the internet, a website that displays men having sex with boys? 

2. Or, after your son had been force-fed this sick crap, the two kidnappers tried to sexually assault your boy?  Would that make your blood boil? 

3. Or how about after your son warded off the initial attempted assault, these sick SOBs killed your child by choking him with a gasoline saturated rag, then molested his corpse and discarded his carcass in a cement filled container?  I’m guessing that would push most parents straight over the anger edge. 

4. And what if after these human pieces of feces are thrown into prison for life (a light sentence in my book), some organization actually defended NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), the host of the website, and their first amendment right to advocate adult men having sex with underage boys and in no ways sees NAMBLA as culpable in aiding or abetting this crime against your kid? 

Is that wrong in your eyes?  It is in mine. 

This scenario from hell is exactly what Mr. and Mrs. Curley, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, went through a few years ago in the kidnapping and murder of their son Jeffery and the subsequent civil suit they filled against nefarious NAMBLA, which the ACLU defended. 

Now, before I go off on the ACLU, here’s a little 411 FYI regarding the indefensible NAMBLA crew.  And if you want to be really shocked, Google them, then go to their website and see for yourself. 

1. NAMBLA states that it’s OK for men to sodomize boys.  Consensual sodomization, of course.

2. NAMBLA wants the legal boundaries prohibiting sex with young boys lifted.  They call these common sense, currently ‘no duh’ prohibitions arcane impediments, i.e. “ageisms,” which keep them from pursuing their hellish hopes of happiness.

3. NAMBLA instructs their seriously twisted members on how they can get away with raping your kid. 

4. NAMBLA distributes kiddie porn, which is now, by the way, a multi-billion dollar industry. 

5. NAMBLA publishes a rag titled: The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships that seeks to aid the God forsaken in such things as:  a) how to be a more effective predator, b) how to maneuver your way into the families of kids you’d like to rape and how to win the parents’ confidence, c) the best places to go to molest children so that you wont get caught, and finally, d) what to do if you should get busted.

6. The Curley’s attorney, Larry Frisoli, stated in the civil suit against NAMBLA that not only does NAMBLA have the nerve to state that man/boy sex is cool, but they also have a little network going in which they trade live children among members for the purpose of having sex with them.

And what does the ACLU do about the aforementioned funk?  Well, they defend these sexual deviants and their “right” to dole out this despicable dirt.

Now, before the reflexive left gets there neckerchiefs and their thongs in an irreversible knot, I’m not homophobic.  And I couldn’t care less what adults do with other adults in the privacy of their own homes.  If men want to have sex with other men, let ‘em have at it.  Just don’t expect me to wear a special ribbon in support of it or to cheer it on during the Testicle Parade when you march through my city, OK? 

The axe I have to grind is with the criminal advocacy of men seducing and raping underage boys.  At this point, I believe (as do billions of other people worldwide) that you need to go.  But the ACLU sees these atrocious acts as defendable freedoms and beliefs that, although we might not share, are legitimate rights all the same.  As far as I’m concerned, as soon as you promote, aid and abet, or actually carry out the violation of a child, the only, only, right you have is either life in prison, the electric chair or a lethal injection. 

The ACLU, on-the-other-hand, will joyfully exploit your kid and put them in harm’s way by defending child pornography and such banal and base organizations such as NAMBLA. 

And they do so with the typical broad-brush stroke of, “it might not be everyone’s taste, but who are we to judge?”  Yes, the ACLU sees this type of “speech” as that which falls way short of speech that should be prohibited.  Oh, really?  Where does one have to go nowadays to have his frontal lobe scraped so that he buys into this stuff without blinking? Continued...