Kevin Jennings, the “Safe Schools Czar,” is unwittingly poised to take a swan dive off the Obama bus

The first scandal that unfolded was an autobiographical confession from Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar.”  Jennings proudly wrote that, when he elicited from a teenage boy the fact that the teenager was sexually involved with an adult man, Jennings didn’t flinch.  Unconcerned about such minutiae as statutory rape, child abuse, and pedophilia, Jennings focused on the real issue:  condoms, which he advised the child to use.  So far, Jennings has survived that scandal.

Zombie predicts, however, that Jennings won’t survive the next round of revelations, this one concerning Jennings’ idol, a guy named Harry Hay.  In a starry eyed speech from the mid-1990s, Jennings spoke of Hay as an inspiring leader of the gay rights movement.  Well, that’s true if you think that pedophilia is a significant part of the movement.  Hays was an active advocate for what’s sweetly called “man-boy love.”  Less sweetly, it’s called pedophilia or child rape.

Nor is this predilicition for sexual congress with young boys a small part of Hays’ history.  Jennings therefore cannot defend his hero worship by claiming  “But I didn’t know.”  As Zombie demonstrates, whenever Hays’ name comes up, NAMBLA, the “man-boy love” organization is a big part of his identity.

In any event, given Jenning’s admittedly cavalier response to the story of a teenager preyed upon by an older man, one really shouldn’t doubt that Hays’ belief about the important role adult sexual mentors play in gay youths’ development jives comfortably with Jennings’ own beliefs.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • suek

    “one really shouldn’t doubt that Hays’ belief about the important role adult sexual mentors play in gay youths’ development jives comfortably with Jennings’ own beliefs.”

    You mean … like priests?

  • Ymarsakar

    Leftist groups boasted that they had put a few hundred operatives into the piresthood, so that they could select for pedophilia and what not.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Suek, how would you have reacted if, instead of priests, someone had said “rabbis”? Every faith denomination has leaders who screw up.

    Sure, there were some priests that were bad and the Roman Catholic Church really screwed-up in how they reacted, but eventually they did what was right (I am not Roman Catholic, by the way, but I know enough priests for whom I have enormous respect, including the head priest in Rome). I also know priests who were personally devastated by the revelations of pedophile priests and the opprobrium that was showered on those priests who were truly good people.

    Just thought that I would mention that.

  • Mike Devx

    Kevin Jennings clearly does believe that a teenage boy should have sexual relationships with older men. He believed so when he was a school counselor as well! It is now too late for him to claim he no longer things so – he should not be believed should he try.

    Now, I think private citizens have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. But if you’re in a position of power, your beliefs matter and they apply to whether you are fit for the job or not. Kevin Jennings is NOT fit to be school czar.

    Regardless of the wrongness or rightness (ha!) of the idea of a school czar itself, this man is not fit for the job. I would feel exactly the same way if he were on record as saying Mary Kay Letourneau was right to have sex with her little boy toy, and all those schoolteachers were in fact right. (Because he *does* think it’s OK, it’s clear.)

    So: Under The Bus With You, Kevin Jennings. Obama’s grandmother certainly doesn’t deserve to be down there, but you do. Maybe instead of corrupting a youth, you can provide comfort to an old woman who’s been scorned and humiliated by the man who used to be the boy that she tried to help raise.

  • Bookworm

    Knowing suek, Danny, I don’t think she was insulting priests. I think she was insulting the fact that the Left finds unforgivable in priests what it finds totally acceptable in those who parade their habits under a politically correct banner. In liberal world, sauce for the Leftist NAMBLA goose is not sauce for the conservative Catholic gander. (Okay, that was really awkward, but you get my point and what I’m willing to bet was suek’s point.)

  • Danny Lemieux

    Book, you are right. Suek…my apologies.

  • suek

    Book got it in one.

    Danny, I have to tell you…I was shocked when I read recently (may have posted a link here…I don’t remember) that there was a book written by a woman who was a “fallen away” Communist, that stated that the Communists have had the goal for years to destroy the Catholic Church, and that infiltrating the priesthood in order to steer the Church off the path of truth was one of their mechanisms. She did not say – but it seems only reasonable to assume – that in their choices of individuals to send into the priesthood that gays were their first choice. I believe it may have been – for one reason because there can be no male-female relationships generally (though priests have failed in this as well) but also because of the damage it would cause the Church if/when they were discovered.

    I don’t know why it shocked me – it makes perfect sense. Their method has been to bring down the US from within (and I think they are nearly there) so why not the Church? I guess my thinking was that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” included individuals when in fact it is only the institution that is offered protection. We’ve certainly had enough failed individuals – including Popes – so that I shouldn’t have thought that way. Infiltration in order to destroy from within is the perfect method for an impregnable foe.

    And of course, the attacks are also in line with the Alinsky method of making them “live up to their own rules”, and their own policies of using the sexual appetite to corrupt the population. So the attacks on the priests while at the same time supporting NAMBLA is consistent in concept – sexuality is irrelevant, but how we use it is not – even if not in application. In other words – they don’t really care…they just use it as a tool to accomplish their end.

    On a different basis – I know. Pedophiles go where there are children. It’s not necessarily that they choose occupations with the intent of molesting children, it’s just that they’re drawn to those places and occupations where children _are_. It makes perfect sense – you don’t hunt for elephants in Alaska. Additionally, of course, apparently 80% at least of the deviant behavior by priests was actually not pedophilia, but pederasty, which is actually a form of homosexuality. The news coverage carefully avoided covering it as pederasty because it _is_ a form of homosexuality, preferring to use the even more repugnant vice of pedophilia. Hence they condemn priests for pederasty, but promote NAMBLA. Perfectly logical – destroy the Church and society norms all by the same act.

  • Ymarsakar

    Given that the Left finds no issue with rape or pedophilia, so long as it is done by the right class of people to the right victims, it is not too far a stretch to realize that they would infiltrate the Catholic Church and plant their own hidden time bombs. After all, what is Obama, if not a hidden time bomb of the decades of Great Society, pro-black slavery class warfare?

    (Okay, that was really awkward, but you get my point and what I’m willing to bet was suek’s point.)

    That may have been really awkward to write, but it was really funny to read.

  • Charles Martel


    Just as I’m getting used to the fact that I’m a racist for opposing Obama, now I have to deal with the fact I’m a homophobe for not wanting 15-year-old boys to have anal sex with older men.