Polanski, NAMBLA and Checking Our Moral Compass

by J.R. Head

Whoopi Goldberg said on The View it wasn’t “rape-rape.”  No, it was non-consensual anal intercourse of a child.  Are we so perverted we will excuse such conduct because the perpetrator is an “artist?”

With all the unpleasantness that’s been in the news lately (ACORN, Polanski, Jaycee Lee Dugard, etc.), I was reminded of a book titled “The Last Undercover” by my friend, fellow Marine, and Big Hollywood contributor, Bob Hamer.  Bob spent twenty-six years in the FBI, all as a special agent working the streets, many of those years in an undercover capacity. He was the undercover agent in twenty administratively approved operations. Some of those assignments lasted a day or two others more than three years. He played such diverse roles as a drug dealer, contract killer, international arms merchant, degenerate gambler, and white collar criminal. By his own admission his most difficult role was playing a pedophile for three years as he infiltrated the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).


–

First, let me say that “The Last Undercover” is absolutely riveting.  Seeing inside an organization like NAMBLA, one that preys on children, through Bob’s eyes is enough to keep you up at night.  However, as things have transpired over the last few weeks, I couldn’t help but wonder about the people on the periphery of such groups and individuals.  For instance, I remembered the travel agent in Bob’s book that was more than happy to set up the NAMBLA members’ trip to have sex with children.  Sure, he didn’t have sex with kids but, if he could make a few bucks off of others doing it, he was pretty okay with the idea.  How about the lovely folks at ACORN?  Setting up a brothel for underage prostitutes?  Okay, let’s figure out the tax ramifications for such a venture.  Then, of course, we have the folks that are defending the talented Mr. Polanski.

So, what is it with these people?  Why the indifference to the idea of adults having sex with children? In what universe is this behavior acceptable?

I decided to talk to my buddy, Bob, to get his take on it.

————————–

J.R. Head:  Bob, you spent a lot of time and energy taking down the folks at NAMBLA.  As a father, hell, as a human being, I’d like to thank you for that.  Right now, though, I’m trying to look at the bigger picture.  What are your thoughts about these folks on the periphery of such activity, the facilitators and enablers of sex with children?

Bob Hamer:  Wow!  No softball questions from you right out of the chute.

JRH:  Not today.

BH:  Well, I have never met a capitalist pacifist who owned gun store.  I believe fundamentally, the pacifist does not want to encourage what he perceives as a potential for violence, even if it might be profitable to own a gun store.  I’m a gun owner so don’t jump on me for that illustration but those I met while working undercover who helped facilitate sex with children saw nothing wrong with what they believed to be “consensual” sex with a child.  In fact, most believed an “enlightened” society would see the benefits of encouraging sex between consenting individuals of any age.  No one satisfactorily identified to me what those benefits were but “boy-lovers” as NAMBLA members refer to themselves often cite the ancient Greeks as an enlightened society.  The travel agent had no objection to putting together overseas trips even though he claimed not to be sexually attracted to boys.

JRH:  So, it was about the money?

BH: Certainly there was a profit motive for him but he saw nothing wrong with men having sex with boys and told me so.  Had he found the actions abhorrent I would hope he would never facilitate such conduct.

A Chicago psychologist we arrested who had a PhD told me of seeing a five-year-old operating out of a boy-bar in Thailand.  The psychologist said he did not have sex with that particular boy because the child “didn’t do anything for me, but I can’t be…a hypocrite and say, you know, ‘don’t do that…’” The psychologist told me his age of preference was “ten to twelve” and saw nothing wrong with his conduct. In fact, he bragged about his conquests.

JRH:  So, in his mind, having sex with kids is okay but God forbid he gets called a hypocrite.  Those are some messed up priorities, man.  Give me some info on NAMBLA.  What’s their story?

BH:  NAMBLA was formed in 1978.  Ostensibly its purpose was to abolish age-of-consent laws.  As my three-year infiltration demonstrated, the organization made no effort whatsoever to change the law.  Its sole purpose was to allow like-minded men, sexually attracted to boys, to legally congregate under the protection of the 1st Amendment.  Even their definition of “consensual” differed from mine and I hope all of our readers.  They essentially defined “consensual” as “not bringing physical harm.”  I sat through a discussion where men believed it permissible to have oral sex with an eighteen-month-old boy as long as the boy wasn’t physically harmed.

JRH:  You’re kidding me.  How the hell do they justify that?

BH:  They justified the action because a child, while exploring his own body, might like the gentle touch of fondling himself.  Since the men believed they were in essence bringing pleasure to the child, their actions were permissible, even proper.  When that is your worldview, when you support men who believe those actions to be proper, it is easy to justify a lot of actions the rest of society deems illegal, even evil.

Most NAMBLA members with whom I interacted believe the boy-lover philosophy will be mainstreamed within their lifetimes.  I would have never thought that even remotely possible until recently.

JRH:  That’s the vibe I’ve been getting lately, too.  While reading “The Last Undercover,” I was filled with feelings of revulsion and anger about what these predators do.  I was especially disturbed to hear how they “profile” their potential prey and engage in the “grooming” of the target and the target’s family.  On the other hand, an understanding that the vast majority of people in the country would feel the same way about it comforted me.  However, the Polanski situation has kind of made me reevaluate my worldview.  Is the moral outrage over having sex with children eroding before our very eyes?

BH:  After investigating organized crime, drugs, terrorism, and child exploitation for two and a half decades, little shocks me but I am appalled at the Roman Polanski apologists.  Since when does being a “brilliant, fantastic genius” excuse anyone from heinous criminal conduct?  He admitted guilt.  He drugged, raped, and sodomized a thirteen-year-old girl.  Are we to excuse him only because his talent brought him riches and therefore he was wealthy enough to flee punishment?  Does Hollywood creativity allow one an alternative moral universe?

Whoopi Goldberg said on The View it wasn’t “rape-rape.”  No, it was non-consensual anal intercourse of a child.  Are we so perverted we will excuse such conduct because the perpetrator is an “artist?”  How can any parent or a person with a conscience condone such behavior?  Imagine the outrage of these same apologists had this been a TV evangelist or a priest.

I admire the victim who has forgiven Polanski but criminal charges are brought by the state.  A criminal indictment does not read “victim vs. defendant.”  It is the state or the federal government versus the accused.  Society is harmed by criminal conduct.  Apparently Polanski’s harm was greater than I first thought and not just to the child victim. It has infected a certain segment of society which condones the behavior and believes he should go unpunished.  Read the charges!  Read his admissions!  He deserves to be punished.

Polanski’s status as a Holocaust survivor has been cited as a reason excusing his criminal actions. As horrible as that experience must have been I can’t help but remember another survivor, Tibor Rubin. He wanted to pay back America for liberating him from the Mauthausen concentration camp in May 1945. Rubin joined the Army, fought in Korea, and was awarded the Medal of Honor.

JRH:  I’ve met Mr. Rubin.  He struck me as an extremely humble and unassuming man.  He has an incredible story and I encourage my readers to look him up on the web.  That being said, Polanski is just one part of this.  The folks at ACORN who turned a blind eye to what they believed to be a brothel for child prostitutes also bothered me.  Now, I’m hearing about this Jennings fellow.  Do you have any insight into that?

BH:  Kevin Jennings is President Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education.  His history and beliefs are well documented in the numerous books he has authored and edited.  There is some dispute as to the legality of his conduct while working as a teacher but by Jennings’ own admission the only counseling he gave a male high school student, who admitted having sex with a man he met in a public restroom, was to use a condom.  Jennings also has high praise for Harry Hay.  If NAMBLA had a Hall of Fame, Hay would be a member.  Hay fought for NAMBLA’s inclusion in the International Lesbian and Gay Association and once carried a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA Walks With Me.”  Although Hay died before I was invited to attend any of NAMBLA’s secret, underground meetings, Hay was a featured speaker at several NAMBLA conferences and at forums on man/boy love.  When members of the Administration admit to admiring a NAMBLA icon it gives me cause for concern and is at the very least a reason for further inquiry.

JRH:  I agree.  Do you feel like this is part of an inevitable coarsening of society in regards to the sexualization of children?

BH: What struck me about NAMBLA was how many men I encountered were high functioning members of our society…doctors, lawyers, ministers, teachers.  Yet these men looked upon boys as sexual objects and had no desire to change their behavior.  In the case of Polanski, “artists” are apologists for child rape.  As to ACORN, let me say I have the highest regard for the work of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles.  The ACORN tapes reinforce the idea that a segment of this society is unable to discern evil.  How can you label oral sex on infants or rape of a thirteen-year-old girl or promoting childhood prostitution as anything but evil?  We as a society must remain vigilant and maintain our moral compass.  I fear too many have lost theirs or never had one.

JRH:  I fear you may be right.  Thank you, Bob, for your service, your courage and for taking some time to talk with me, today.


Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | | Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted Oct 8th 2009 at 2:07 pm in Celebrity News, Culture, Politics | 463 Comments