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 1^st 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.

NAMBLA is an organization with a goal to eliminate age-of-consent laws. Arguing those younger than 18 have the mental ability to make decisions, they claim it is unfair to the youth to prevent them from doing so. They oppose forcing sexual relations on anyone, regardless of age. They do not advocate breaking the law, but work to change the law.

On June 15th 2005 the men of NAMBLA rejoiced when the pop singer Michael Jackson was found not guilty of all charges of sexual molestation of boys and of providing minors with alcohol. The group considered Michael Jackson’s acquittal to be a vindication for their Association. “Michael’s innocence is something that is held very dear to us,” said a representative at the time. “We can all relate to wanting to love a child. Many of us have small children that we love and many of us take small children to bed with us every night. Loving a child is not a crime and Michael has proven that to everyone.” Some NAMBLA members felt this was breaking new ground for them and hoped to see laws amended such as mandatory curfews for minors and the legal age of consent lowered to nine years of age.

The NAMBLA website is a cornucopia of at best, instructions on how to love an underage boy in an inappropriate manner, and at worst how to manipulate one into questionable physical experiences with an adult male.

In 2003, Jackson confessed to 60 Minutes about his love of sleeping with children. NAMBLA was founded in 1978, so the question begs; did Jackson get his talking points from NAMBLA for his 60 Minutes interview? In that interview The King of Pop was asked if it was okay to share his bed with children “Of course. Why not? If you’re going to be a pedophile, if you’re going to be Jack the Ripper, if you’re going to be a murderer, it’s not a good idea. That I am not.”

When asked if Jackson would allow his own children to sleep in a bed with a grown man who was not a relative or to sleep in that man’s bedroom, Jackson replied, “Sure, if I know that person, trust them, and love them. That’s happened many times with me when I was little.” This comment too is in lockstep with the mind set of NAMBLA “We feel a special love for children in our own special way and want to express it.” said a representative after the airing of that interview.

NAMBLA members don’t see themselves as Jack the Ripper because in the twisted mindset of its members they feel they’re filling a need they see in a child at the hands of their tormented past or present sickness.

Jackson left many unanswered questions about his past. Was he himself a victim of man boy love as a youth? Was his sick need to be with young boys a sign of arrested development, was he gay, or was Jackson just a modern day pedophiliac Pied Piper moon walking children to his Neverland ranch?

Only in today’s vacuous pop culture would thousands of people and all media outlets raise this man up like a Christ passing, all because he could sing and dance. If what he said about children came from the mouth of people’s neighbor, they’d have his head. On June 25th 2009 when Jackson was pronounced dead NAMBLA lost a man in common, gained a Messiah and children everywhere became safer.

Relax…this is not another NAMBLA story but give me a break. If you spent three years infiltrating a group of pedophiles you’d have a few stories serving as life lessons.

NAMBLA has a magazine but not a centerfold. If they did my nominee would be John from San Francisco. He was truly one of the more interesting characters I met at the Miami NAMBLA conference. Heavyset, in his late fifties, with his Mohawk hairstyle, a bad case of dandruff, earrings, shorts, and black knee high socks he made quite a fashion statement whenever he entered a room. John identified himself as a “gaythiest.”  He had been to prison twice for child molestation and was caught a third time but for some unstated reason the victim refused to cooperate with the police. John admitted to being “out as a gay” and “out as an atheist” but “those things are different. You go around saying you like to run your hands through a little boy’s hair, or you like to kiss him or do other things like that, it doesn’t get the same reaction.” My only response is, “dah!”

What John also said was he used to live on the streets of Miami but moved to San Francisco because the public assistance was more lucrative in California. Another unforgettable character was Sam from Albuquerque. Sam was a three-time loser and thanks to our sting, was sentenced to thirty years. Sam, a former special education teacher and a member of the NAMBLA steering committee, their governing body, moved from Colorado to New Mexico because the Land of Enchantment had a reputation for being more sex offender friendly. Okay, Hamer, so get to the point.

As a Marine Corps officer and FBI agent I took an oath “to protect and defend” the Constitution. Just the other day I decided to re-read it. It really is an amazing document. It isn’t that long and seems pretty clear. As I read it, the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the powers of the federal government. The states were given most of the powers. Throughout our nation’s history the states have been independent experiments in democracies. Many programs instituted at the federal level or adopted by other states were the results of an individual state’s innovation.  Article I, Sections 8 and 9 enumerate the powers of Congress. Both parties have played upon the “general welfare” phrase and expanded the federal role. The feds have their hands in everything from education to health care to farming to banking to a lot of other areas not covered by the document. 

We can debate whether the Constitution is a “contract” or “a breathing living document.” Debate can be healthy. But today it seems like Congress wants to legislate everything but mandatory two-ply toilet paper.

This past week Congressman Paul Ryan in discussing the Republican’s alternative to the President’s stimulus package, said part of the reform would be converting Medicaid to an allotment to let states and governors enact programs most efficient for each state’s unique needs.

Rush Limbaugh threatened to sell his residence and move his Northern Command broadcast facilities from New York because of proposed state and local tax increases. His new home would be a state friendlier to business.

As I read it, all of this is part of the Founding Fathers’ Plan. Limit the feds, give the states the power, let them experiment, let them compete, and maybe they can build a better mousetrap. Otherwise, if it were one size fits all, Miami would still have the John the child molester living within its city limits and Sam would have never left Colorado.

I’m not a sociologist, a criminologist, or any other type of “ologist,” but I bring to the table twenty-six years of street experience as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During my career, I worked organized crime, gangs, terrorism, and child exploitation. I’ve seen society at its best and its worst, and I often viewed it from the inside. Many of my twenty-six years were spent undercover. I have successfully posed as a contract killer, drug dealer, fence, international arms dealer, degenerate gambler, and white collar criminal. But it was my last assignment, playing the role of a pedophile, that opened my eyes to a societal problem going beyond what Ann discusses in her book. 

I spent three years infiltrating the North American Man/Boy Love Association. NAMBLA is real and not just some episodic joke on South Park or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. NAMBLA is an underground network of men who are sexually attracted to boys and seek to justify their attraction.  

On December 2, 1978, in response to what some activists claim to have been a witch hunt of twenty-four men arrested for child pornography and the statutory rape of boys, a meeting was held at the Community Church in Boston. About thirty men mobilized that evening and formed NAMBLA.  

The express purpose of the organization is to abolish age-of-consent laws and legalize consensual sex between men and boys. In reality, this group, hiding behind the First Amendment, uses the secret meetings as a networking opportunity to reinforce among themselves their criminal passions. I know because I was invited into the inner sanctum. I attended meetings, participated in their pen pal program, wrote for their magazine, and was asked twice to serve on the steering committee, their governing body. Not once during my three-year membership was there any effort to lobby any political figure at any level of government to seek to abolish or even to modify the age-of-consent laws. There was no talk of hiring a paid lobbyist in Washington; there was no organized letter writing campaign; there was no endorsement of candidates. For all intents and purposes these men meet to network with other child molesters on where and how to find and seduce boys. We proved that when an FBI-orchestrated sting operation netted eight members of what one defendant called the group’s “inner circle.” 

During my membership I corresponded with approximately 165 members and met face-to-face with about three dozen. The membership ran the socio-economic gamut. I met men with advanced degrees and those who were high school dropouts; Mensa members and the barely literate; married and single; wealthy and destitute. What they all shared was a need and desire to be around like-minded men seeking to legitimize their sexual attraction to boys. 

I never met Charles Jaynes, the NAMBLA member convicted of the brutal murder of Jeffrey Curley and now serving a life sentence. He was the exception. All of the men with whom I dealt were “persuasion predators.” They didn’t sneak into homes in the dead of night and abduct sleeping boys from their beds. Their tactics were much more subtle. One member, a former special education teacher, who as a result of our investigation was sentenced to thirty years, admitted to molesting sixty to seventy boys and “grooming” another 200. Like most members, he cherished the opportunity to develop a relationship with a boy, attempting to legitimize that relationship by calling it “boy love” or “intergenerational sex” or “Greek love.” In my discussions and correspondence with these members one thing stood out: They targeted the lonely, the emotionally empty, the hurting boy. Those boys seeking affirmation and attention from a father-figure were especially vulnerable. Grooming was like a courting process. It might begin with a look, then a compliment, a conversation lavishing praise and establishing a common connection, and finally a trust.  

I am often asked how we can protect our children. There is no magic formula for identifying a molester. There may be clues, but they are not foolproof. We cannot prove a negative. We can prove a person is a child molester. We cannot prove he is not. But Ann, let me expand on what you have said. I know you have been attacked for your chapter on single mothers and of course, there are exceptions to most rules, but single moms (and married moms and dads) let me give one piece of advice that Ann didn’t render. Based upon my three year affiliation with these child molesters, I observed one thing: Not one boy who came from a home with a strong, loving father figure was successfully targeted by a persuasion predator.

Protection may be that simple…a boy needs a loving father.