CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

On the Politically Correct Abuse of Children

Jul 2, 2013

While most people rightly condemn child abuse, there are in fact certain forms of child abuse which are now acceptable – at least by our secular left elites, and the activist lobby groups. Let me here speak to two cases of such abuse.

One is obviously horrific and perverted abuse. The other, sadly, is not only accepted, but actually endorsed and promoted. The first case I have discussed before. It involves an Australian homosexual couple who bought a baby from Russian surrogates, and then not only sexually abused the toddler, but shared him around various paedophile networks in different countries.

The prolonged sexual abuse by these homosexual paedophiles was so utterly diabolical and monstrous that a judge did not want a jury to hear the case. One US state attorney said this about the case: ”For more than one year and across three continents, these men submitted this young child to some of the most heinous acts of exploitation that this office has ever seen.” Actually for the first six years of his poor life he was subject to repeated abuse. I discuss this ugly episode here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/06/30/dont-mention-the-h-and-p-words-together/

The reason I discuss it again is quite simple: all over the Western world we are being told we must accept not only homosexuality, but homosexual adoption rights. The activists along with a fully duped media are pushing their agenda, without a bit of care about the consequences.

Indeed, consider this: our ABC actually strongly promoted this very same homosexual couple just a few years ago. The GayBC is among the most pro-homosexual media outlets in existence in this country. They gave this couple plenty of airplay and newsfeed.

Their “moving” story was played out on the radio, on television, the Internet, and in newspapers. And the ABC was up to its ears in all this. For example on 14 July, 2010 they ran with this story: “Two dads are better than one”. It began as follows:

“Becoming parents was hard work for gay couple, Pete and Mark but they’d do it all over again if they had to. A shiny child’s bike lies on its side on the front lawn of an immaculate garden. Around the back gay dads Pete and Mark chase their son’s pet chickens around, trying to catch them.  Drake, 5, exclaims that the little birds are too fast for him.

“It’s a happy, relaxed family scene. But it wasn’t an easy road to get there. After many hurdles Drake was born by surrogacy in Russia. ‘We decided that we would have a child, that it was time for us to have a family. We wanted to experience the joys of fatherhood and we started our surrogacy over in the United States back in 2002,’ Pete said.”

In typical lamestream media style, this story is designed to pull all the emotional heart strings, and make anyone opposed to it look like a callous and heartless ogre. Personal interest stories are always used by the activist MSM. Contrary facts and evidence can easily be overcome by simply showing a happy “family”. Emotive stories will always trump rational argument and evidence-based debate.

The ABC in particular and the MSM in general do this constantly. It is a way to short circuit debate, and put the homosexual activists in the best possible light. Of course they will never show the opposite. They will never feature lengthy stories with big colour pics about children who have been harmed in homosexual households. They will never do personal interest stories which may cast homosexuality in a bad light.

It is only and always positive spin from the media lapdogs of the homosexual lobbyists. And this story fit the description to a T. The ABC puff piece ends this way: “On arrival in Australia customs quizzed Mark and Pete for hours. Police were also sent around to their house on a Sunday morning to investigate. ‘When people see two guys together, you know it’s like, “Where’s his mother?” We’ve had a lot of people ask that,’ Pete said. ‘I think that even if one of us was a woman, we wouldn’t have had the same suspicions and problems that we went through.’

“Thinking back to the police visit, Pete said the police seemed to want reassurance that the situation was ‘right’. They checked if the couple had equipment to raise a child like a bed, clothes and bottles. Mark said he’s sure that they were under suspicion of paedophilia. But despite the difficulties, he said the couple would do it again with no hesitation. ‘We’re a family just like any other family,’ he said with pride.”

Yep, a happy family just like any other. Oh, and the ABC has now pulled this article from their website. It says this at the site: “The page you are looking for, ‘http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/07/14/2953694.htm’ cannot be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or be temporarily unavailable.” I wonder why. But fortunately it has been preserved. I have the entire piece for those who are interested.

The second story of abuse is much less apparent and much less in your face. But it really is also heartbreaking and sickening. And the incredible thing is, a homosexual is the one telling the story. Even he can see what harm he is doing to his daughter.

If the above story brought tears to your eyes, this one should as well. It begins this way: “Sometimes when my daughter, who is 7, is nicely cuddled up in her bed and I snuggle her, she calls me Mommy. I am a stay-at-home dad. My male partner and I adopted both of our children at birth in open domestic adoptions. We could fill our home with nannies, sisters, grandmothers, female friends, but no mothers.

“My daughter says ‘Mommy’ in a funny way, in a high-pitched voice. Although I refer the honors immediately to her birth mom, I am flattered. But saddened as well, because she expresses herself in a voice that is not her own. It is her stuffed-animal voice. She expresses not only love; she also expresses alienation. She can role-play the mother-daughter relationship, but she cannot use her real voice, nor have the real thing.”

He concludes, “How to parent around these issues of motherlessness and vulnerability is a personal choice. There are practical matters, like where your family lives, where your kids go to school, what clubs and churches you are members of, what friends and family you have over for dinner, where you go on vacation. Still, the overarching idea behind parenting by gay men should be that it is great for a child to have one or two dads, and that not having a mom in your daily life can be hard. And that it is O.K. to long for a soft cheek instead of a stubbly one.”

This article is really about two things: remorse and justification. Even he knows this is wrong, and that it is killing his daughter, yet he wants to rationalise it away anyhow. A man pretending he is a mother to a poor little child is also a case of child abuse.

It is about deliberately and knowingly depriving a child of one of the two most important people in the world: their own biological mother and father. So this man can see the torment in her child’s eyes, yet he must make excuses for it, since he is too selfish and abusive to allow the child to be raised properly.

And our ABC of course continues to promote this constantly, relentlessly and unapologetically. So whether we deprive a child of mum and dad, or subject them to physical abuse, both are harming our kids. And the MSM is quite happy to keep pushing this demonic agenda.

www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-misnomer-of-motherless-parenting.html?_r=3&

[1295 words]

11 Responses to On the Politically Correct Abuse of Children

  • 730 Report is actually covering this H and P story tonight (Tuesday)! It’ll be interesting to see what political spin it receives. If you miss it tonight you could check it out on Iview, if interested. Me, I want to see just how 730 Report is going to spin this.

    Matthew Patchon

  • More coverage of this story here:

    www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-02/police-vow-to-smash-paedophile-ring-that-abused-trafficked-boy/4795210

    At least it’s front and centre.

    As for the 730 story, it at least included reference to the original 2010 story covered by Ginger Gorman, who expresses her remorse and disgust at how her original story has unfolded. The story also segued to the exposé of the Boylover.net ring a couple of years ago.

    Also, Leigh Sales had the gumption to say the “…it goes against every principle of parenting…”

    It’ll be curious to see what the lobbyists have to say about this unfolding story…

    Matthew Patchon

  • Thanks guys

    Yes there was no way the ABC could weasel their way out of this story, since they were in fact the ones so cheerily promoting this couple in the first place. Yet I see no public apologies and no retractions so far – only the sneaky withdrawal of its earlier story from the web.

    If they really meant business, they would do what I said, and start featuring some human interest stories with folks from the other side; eg, lengthy interviews with ex-homosexuals, or stories of those who have grown up in homosexual households who now speak unfavourably of their experience, and so on.

    But I won’t hold my breath here. I have never seen such stories on the ABC or on other MSM outlets. You can only find them in the alternative media it seems. I will continue to feature their stories, since the MSM refuses to run with them.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • As I said, the ABC has yet to apologize or retract their past promotion of this evil couple. I am not the only one absolutely outraged by all this. See this new article as well:

    theothermccain.com/2013/07/02/neutral-objective-incompetence-how-ginger-gorham-aided-pedophile-network/

    Here is a quote: “What enraged me is how the utter one-sidedness of the news media in regard to homosexuality assisted Newton and Truong in their crime, so that when Gorham sought them out for a 2010 feature article, it amounted to free publicity for their criminal enterprise. Journalists today cannot report about homosexuality, they must only advocate, endorse, praise and celebrate homosexuality. This paradigm reduces reporters to the role of propagandists, whose job is to parrot the publicity of radical gay-rights activists.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Bill. And I must apologise to Ginger for misspelling her surname. That’s what I get for posting from the iPad. The autocorrect is horrible!

    But it’s good to see that this 730 story is stimulating discussion across the ‘Net. Something as galling as the content of this story may cause people (here’s hoping) to rethink their knee-jerk support of their moral relativistic stances.

    There is too much personal opinion based on Public Opinion in this day and age. Too much lazy thinking!

    Matthew Patchon

  • The inbuilt need of every child for a mother is the central tenant of ‘attachment theory’. This was the monkey experiments by Harold Harlow in the 1950’s where the attachment to a soft nurturing source was critical for monkey development.

    “Monkeys who had soft, tactile contact with their terry cloth mothers behaved quite differently than monkeys whose mothers were made out of cold, hard wire. Harlow hypothesized that members of the first group benefitted from a psychological resource—emotional attachment—unavailable to members of the second. By providing reassurance and security to infants, cuddling kept normal development on track.”

    pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/studies/HarlowMLE.htm

    In other words, the need for a mother, whether biological or adopted, is in-built in every child.

    Damien Spillane

  • Here’s some more from Harlow’s research

    What exactly did Harlow see that convinced him emotional attachment made a decisive developmental difference?

    When the experimental subjects were frightened by strange, loud objects, such as teddy bears beating drums, monkeys raised by terry cloth surrogates made bodily contact with their mothers, rubbed against them, and eventually calmed down. Harlow theorized that they used their mothers as a “psychological base of operations,” allowing them to remain playful and inquisitive after the initial fright had subsided. In contrast, monkeys raised by wire mesh surrogates did not retreat to their mothers when scared. Instead, they threw themselves on the floor, clutched themselves, rocked back and forth, and screamed in terror. These activities closely resembled the behaviors of autistic and deprived children frequently observed in institutions as well as the pathological behavior of adults confined to mental institutions, Harlow noted. The awesome power of attachment and loss over mental health and illness could hardly have been performed more dramatically.”

    Damien Spillane

  • The ABC is frequently showing itself to be a despicable waste of tax payer funding for the sake of promoting injustice as acceptable and persecuting those who dissent.

    The media has been complicit in evil for a long time now but ABC seems to trend ahead of the curve these days.

    Simon Fox

  • I have just been introduced to this site via FB. I so appreciate your forum and want to continue to have access to your articles. I’m American, but have family in Australia and am thankful that this evil is being addressed and will share your info at every opportunity.

    Bonnie Oskvarek, US

  • Thanks Bonnie and welcome.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • And the ABC is at it again with 730s report on transsexuals tonight. Despite last week’s Egg on our Collective Face story (the H and P story), they want to run another LGBT sympathetic story:

    www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-08/living-outside-male-or-female/4807128

    While they remain people, and are deserving of respect like anyone else, by what Right do they (as part of the LGBT Movement) get to lobby against a social structure (marriage) that is pertinent to the significantly larger percentage of the population? I suppose that would be the Right of Equality…according to them.

    But, what rights do a Civil Union not imbue same-sex couples? If they are all about the right to enter into a legally binding relationship then a Civil Union would be sufficient, surely!

    I thought a Democracy was meant to work on a system of Majority Rules? Why is that forgotten in all these debates?

    The ABS indicates that in 2006 52% of the Australian population is in a registered marriage, with 0.4% of people (approx 50,000 people) (although possibly an undercount) in same-sex living in relationships. For a more in-depth read checkout ABS document number 4102.0.

    Matthew Patchon

Leave a Reply