I'm going to say this real slow

Saturday, December 03, 2011

Dr. Bill Glaser a forensic psychiatrist in the area of sex offenders said:
If we had some sort of plague or epidemic which affected one in four girls, one in eight boys, there would be a national outcry about it and we would be setting up national coordinated efforts to deal with the problem as we have with modern day epidemics such as HIV.
There are some who say that we are becoming unnecessarily panicky about child sexual abuse. The evidence is that we have not panicked enough.
We first wrote about Benjamin Radford here after he appeared on a podcast with a sex offender and a sex offender defender to commiserate about sex offender laws and what he refers to as a "predator panic".

I tried to clarify some of his errors, but that's a lot of information for such a small space and I suppose I failed to enlighten him. Still, I was rather disappointed recently on another podcast when I gave him the opportunity to explain his position and he once again did not want to be "confused with the facts". Only this time it was worse. In the intervening years he has forgotten his material and he confused the sex offender registry with community notification laws then argued against them both using residency restriction arguments. My head was spinning as Radford - puffed up and full of himself with delusions of superior intelligence and thinking skills - wove a web of lies, myths, half-truths and utter nonsense.
"People say there's no cure and that's simply not true"

Benjamin Radford said.

There's a cure? Even the most rabid pedophile apologists like Fred Berlin don't make that claim. Benjamin Radford must know something that experts who study sex offenders don't know because Benjamin Radford said the facts were there. He said they were clear. He said they were crystal clear. In fact, he said it at least 5 times in less than 5 minutes. I don't know if he was just trying to convince himself or not but he's surely convinced me. Now I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's a lying cockroach. Most importantly, he's intellectually dishonest.

Benjamin Radford has made his faulty conclusions based upon the DOJ recidivism report which showed a small percentage of recidivism after a three year period. At first I thought I would explain to Benjamin Radford why the DOJ report doesn't prove anything. I thought I might ask him why he believes it's proof when 80% of sex crimes go unreported. I thought I might ask him why he believes it's proof when almost 30% of those men in that report were ALREADY repeat offenders - sometimes multiple times. I thought I might ask him why he believed it was proof when almost half the men couldn't have committed another sex crime anyway considering that they were back in prison for another crime or a parole violation before the three year mark. I thought of asking him these things which he clearly failed to consider but he wouldn't be able to answer. He couldn't answer because he lied. He was intellectually dishonest. He read a report - not a study - and failed to question what the data actually meant.

Benjamin Radford says that to analyze information in his "investigations"
"critical thinking, critical reading and comprehension are essential"
He claimed to "thoroughly research" his topic. He claimed to "investigate" the issue. He claimed to analyze the information he found. But Benjamin Radford didn't actually analyze anything. He read it, didn't comprehend it, didn't question it and stopped looking. Why? Because it was what he wanted to hear. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Benjamin Radford has referred to the DOJ report on recidivism and a faulty Megan's Law report each time he has spoken of this issue. But that's it, that's all he got from his "investigation". If he had "thoroughly researched" and analyzed and comprehended he would know the report he references didn't even study the topic it claimed to have studied. He would know that it was rejected for inclusion in a meta analysis for its inferior methodology. He would know that the report he references said that sexual recidivism was lower in the time frame they studied but they didn't think it could be due to Megan's Law which may be effective but cost too much, they said they didn't know why recidivism was lower they just didn't think it was Megan's Law. So while Benjamin Radford claims "Megan's Law doesn't work" and that it is "crystal clear" - based on that study - he's either lying or ignorant. In either case - to attempt to persuade people on a topic such as this - or indeed any topic - while either lying or being ignorant is intellectual dishonesty.

The truth is, of course, that the answer is not crystal clear. Consensus has not been reached and the only conclusion most experts can agree upon is the fact the registry and community notification has been around for a relatively short period - not long enough to determine its effectiveness. He has written about this, spoken about this, written letters to lawmakers and journalists informing them that they have "inaccurate information". "It's a MYTH!", he says. He's tried to influence people with information he knows nothing about, information he failed to properly research, failed to analyze and failed to comprehend. For a self-hailed "critical thinker" I'm almost embarrassed for him.

I could explain to him that the registry is not important because it tells you where a sex offender "gets his mail" but because it tells you who he is. The vast majority of sexually abused children know their offender in some way. This includes parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles, neighbors, coaches, family friends, etc. The registry doesn't give parents a false sense of security when they should be looking at Uncle Joe and the soccer coach. No, it empowers the parents to know not to let Uncle Joe around the kids, or not to let Susie sleep over at Mary's house. It keeps known risks from coaching soccer or luring kids in the neighborhood to their home. It helps young single mothers know not to become involved with that terribly nice guy at church who just happens to be a child molester of 5 year old girls when she has a five year old girl. It brings them out of the shadows and adds one more tool to try to help keep our children safe.
This study offers evidence that suggests broad community notification has a deterrent effect on sex offense recidivism, thus providing support for rational choice theory as a framework within which to explain, predict, and control sexual offending.

Why does broad community notification appear to have a deterrent effect on sexual recidivism? Sexual offending and, more narrowly, sexual recidivism frequently involve offenders who know their victims. To a large extent, then, sexual reoffending is about social relationships. Existing research reveals that when sex offender recidivists victimize someone they know, it is often a collateral contact victim whom they met through a friend, acquaintance, or loved one.

Examples include an offender who victimizes his girlfriends son or daughter, an offender who molests the daughter of a friend or acquaintance, or an offender who baby-sits the children of an acquaintance or co-worker. In all of these examples, the offender is able to gain access to the victim by first establishing a relationship with the victims parent, guardian, or family member.

Sex offenders often operate under a veil of secrecy, which enables them to obtain access, either directly or indirectly, to unwitting victims. By lifting this veil, community notification may severely limit their opportunities to form the types of relationships that facilitate sexual offending.
Radford didn't read that report. There are a lot of reports he didn't read. He only read the ones that appeared to prove the position he set out to prove. So why does he care anyway? Radford said that the "sex offender panic" was important to him because
"if you don't understand a social problem you can't fix it"

But he didn't try to understand the problem, he merely tried to prove there wasn't a problem at all and that none of our tools were helpful to combat it.......if there were a problem. He was intellectually dishonest.

I believe Benjamin Radford ran out of mythical monsters to disprove and decided to try and disprove real ones. He was ill equipped to do so and fundamentally misguided. Not only is this a complex issue beyond his mediocre "critical thinking" skills which he didn't even attempt to apply but only skimmed the surface and declared it was "crystal clear". He had already made up his mind. He's not a skeptic. Not really. A skeptic would have delved deeper, a skeptic would have eventually realized that the answer is not in that DOJ report. The answer is not so simple as all that.

Benjamin Radford is only "skeptical" about certain things. Things that will get him attention mostly. He doesn't believe in God, ghosts, psychics or Big foot. He doesn't believe in monsters who damage our children's hearts and their souls. I suppose he doesn't believe they even have one.

I issue a challenge to Benjamin Radford to actually do some real research in earnest on this topic otherwise he should apologize for being intellectually dishonest and retract the uninformed statements he's made. This is not Bigfoot. This is very real. You see, unlike Big Foot there are living, breathing witnesses to the monsters that do exist in this world. Benjamin Radford has become a victim-denier.

Personally I don't think he has the ability or the integrity to do either, so my expectations are low. I believe Benjamin Radford should stick with what he knows best: taste-testing gourmet monster dung
"On average most sex offenders are never caught again for a new sex offense, after five years, between 10 and 15 percent of sex offenders are detected, often convicted, of committing a new sex offense. If you follow them for ten years the rates go up somewhat, if you follow them as long as we’ve been able to follow them, which is about 20 years, the rates go up to somewhere between 30 to 40 percent of the total sample will eventually be caught for a new sex offense."
Dr. R. Karl Hansen

Why are Johns Hopkins and Fred Berlin trying to save face?

Thursday, November 17, 2011

On August the 17th, B4U-Act staged a symposium on the topic: "Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies", with the "featured speaker" being Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins’ Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit.

The symposium yielded widespread condemnation from around the world. The criticism was so intense that Johns Hopkins' went into damage control, publishing the following statement on their website; in an attempt to distance themselves from Berlins involvement and to glue back together what's left of his waning reputation:

"Statement regarding Johns Hopkins faculty member’s participation in Aug. 17 B4U-ACT conference

There has been significant misinformation circulating about Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., director of Johns Hopkins’ Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit, and his recent participation at a conference in Baltimore.

As an international expert in sexual disorders, Dr. Berlin speaks routinely at conferences in his role as an individual and as an expert in these matters. In this role, Dr. Berlin speaks for himself, and not as a representative of Johns Hopkins. Dr. Berlin is unequivocally opposed to any sexual actions between adults and children. In no way does he advocate pedophilia, but rather he believes in getting appropriate help for people attracted to minors in order to prevent them from acting on their impulses. He argues that a distinction should and must be made between individuals with pedophilia who act on their attractions and those who are attracted to minors but refrain from acting on their predilections.

Dr. Berlin believes much of the information reported about the conference has been significantly distorted. Statements made by others in attendance should not be construed as representing the views of Dr. Berlin or Johns Hopkins. He was very clear in his remarks to all who were in attendance how important it is to make every possible effort to prevent the sexual abuse of children."
"B4U-Act:" the name suggests the organizations intention is to prevent pedophiles from sexually molesting children. However Michael Melsheimer, one of the groups founders, had this to say on BoyChat about B4U-Act's actual intentions:

"Be assured you will find no current reference to prevention of offending. You can take that to the bank."
Among the company of fellow pedophiles, B4U-Acts goals are nakedly stated by Melsheimer:

"I think that you are right. We do have to go slow and not take on a radical agenda. We could all learn well by what happened to NAMBLA.

As it relates to building bridges, you are right again. There is nothing more important for our community to do. It is the only way we are ever going to be able to get any possible acceptance in the larger community for who we are as human being and what we feel is right for children"

"We have to be very careful at first as to what we say and do, so we can say do and say more down the road. We need to build bridges and coalitions. This means that we might have to cool it for the moment. Please note that I said for the moment."

More can be read about B4U-Act and their public agenda versus their private agenda, here. Some people might be surprised to discover that Melsheimer also happens to be friends with Fred Berlin:

"I have known Fred Berlin for more than 20 years. Do you know that he spoke against the reporting law in the state legislature of Maryland when it was first proposed in the late 80's? This was not a popular thing to do. I was with him when he did this.

Berlin says a lot of things publicly, so do people like ourselves. We never say everything."

Before we go any further, I would like to go back a step and look at John Money, a junk scientist and a man that Fred Berlin regarded as one of his most important mentors. In 1991, Money conducted an interview with the Dutch pro-pedophilia magazine "Paidika," below are some of the views he expressed during that interview:

"Imagine if you were a young boy with a paedophile lover. You would have to keep it secret for sure. It would be extremely difficult to integrate it into your total life without its being out in the open, especially with your family."

"I would say though that if I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way."

"I prefer not to use the words abuse and molestation, certainly not to use them loosely to mean anything having to do with sex, which is the way they are used nowadays."

"I also decided regarding paedophilia that I would never report anybody, so I simply would not even try to treat a paedophile, because the very fact that they come and ask for treatment makes them reportable."

..bizarre, but if this someone who Berlin regards so highly, it perhaps explains his current disposition. And as Berlin continues his campaign for the pedophiles, clouds of suspicion and doubt begin to form over just how much truth there is to statements like this: "Dr. Berlin is unequivocally opposed to any sexual actions between adults and children."

B4U-Act is funded by the Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners. If you'd like to express your concerns to them, they can be contacted here.

No, Not One

Sunday, October 30, 2011

"Do they make sex offender zombie costumes? I'd like to pick me up one, so I can jump out behind some bushes and scare the little kiddies. Mew hah hah hah....."

-Michael James Gregg
Convicted Child Molester

Little does Michael Gregg aka Zman aka SexOffenderIssues know - he doesn't need a costume. No, he and others like him are scary enough as it is.

They are scary not because parents are "hysterical or "over-protective" as he claims but because there really are monsters out there. Michael should know better than to mock this serious issue. He should know because he's one of the monsters.

See that graphic above? That's what Michael Gregg is trying to sell in his "advertise you're a demented sex offender defender" store.

What goes on in the mind of someone like Michael Gregg? If we didn't already know from reading his prolific blathering histrionics - that graphic says it all. At the moment this proven liar and convicted child molester is bemoaning the fact that parents can know someone is a child molester on Halloween rather than allowing their children to blindly knock on a monster's door. Even more importantly he doesn't understand limiting convicted child molesters from participating in this children's holiday. After all, why shouldn't known pedophiles be allowed to lure children with candy and decorations?

His logic seems to be
"Over the last 100 or more years, there has not been a single case of a child being sexually abused on Halloween by a known or unknown sex offender"
"There has not been one case of where a child was sexually abused by a known or unknown sex offender on Halloween, not one!"
He has repeated that over and over again. Frankly, I don't understand why he would believe that Halloween is immune. Why would registered sex offenders reoffend 364 days a year but not on Halloween? It makes no sense. Especially when we consider the study he links to by the sex offender apologist who has devoted her career to making life easier for baby rapers - Jill Levenson. Jill says that there are no more sex crimes committed on Halloween than any other day of the year - no fewer either for that matter.

I suppose he just missed some things. Arpana Jinaga for example who not only raped but killed his victim - at a Halloween party. How about Matthew Trakas who exposed himself to young girls while putting up Halloween decorations. How about Howard Ault - who lured two young sisters aged 11 and 7 with a promise of Halloween candy then raped and murdered the two? How about Victor Oustigoff who molested a 3 year old in his neighbors bathroom on Halloween night while her grandmother was in the other room. How about these guys? All repeat offenders. I have more, lots more. But Michael Gregg doesn't apparently - and we all know how sex offender dementia works - if he doesn't know about it - well then, it just didn't happen.

Michael Gregg's denial and rationalizations are only surpassed on the offensive scale by his tongue-lashing of victims and their families - a trait that belittles him as a man and gives him the appearance of an extremely dangerous person suffering a total disconnect with reality.

There's nothing we can do about that I suppose, although there IS help out there if Michael would seek it. As far as the offensive shirt design I can outdo him trying to scare you.........
How's that for scary?

And if you're really a fright seeker how about this mask? Available in our Store today.

The truth is sex offenders DO reoffend on Halloween. They reoffend every single day.

The sex offender defender which Michael Gregg knows and loves - Sarah Tofte - says that 25% of all sex offenders reoffend within 15 years. She also says that registered sex offenders make up one-fifth of one percent of the U.S. population and yet this tiny group is responsible for 13% of all NEW sex crimes.

The accepted authority on recidivism says this:
"On average most sex offenders are never caught again for a new sex offense, after five years, between 10 and 15 percent of sex offenders are detected, often convicted, of committing a new sex offense. If you follow them for ten years the rates go up somewhat, if you follow them as long as we’ve been able to follow them, which is about 20 years, the rates go up to somewhere between 30 to 40 percent of the total sample will eventually be caught for a new sex offense."

Dr. R. Karl Hansen
Why Michael Gregg and others like him who have the most reasons to try and prove that they aren't animals, that they are capable of rehabilitation and worthy of society's trust would choose to mock and ridicule people who have been damaged by sex offenders is a mystery. I'm of the opinion that it is because they are not capable of rehabilitation as they continue to make the same disturbing mistakes over and over and over again. What other mistakes do they continue to make?

Just keep watching. I do.

The Unmitigated Gall

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Derek Logue is a master of it. And apparently it is the ONLY thing he's mastered aside from blame gaming. Now he presumes to lecture "media hounds" on the proper use of the word pedophile and claims there can be no such thing as a "convicted pedophile". Why? Well a couple of reasons, one is that pedophiles CAN control themselves according to Derek Logue, the convicted child molester. Also according to this wacked-out-victim-blaming-piece-of-shit-cockroach one can't be a convicted pedophile because pedophilia is a medical diagnosis.

Pedophilia is also a common word. It has a common meaning which is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object". It's in Websters. Look it up.

A part of semantics is also the study of how words evolve. My contention is that words mean what society decides they mean. "Gay" for example. This is really unimportant though because we all know that "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and "A pedo by any other name would smell as foul". The name doesn't change what it is.

I recognize that it is important to someone like Derek Logue however because he doesn't want that word associated with himself, despite the fact that he admitted he was attracted to a child. And despite the fact that he molested that child, and then spent years online blaming her and everyone else for his crime while associating with and defending known and admitted pedophiles - he doesn't want anyone to think that about him. He prefers to minimize:
"Very few Registrants are clinically diagnosed with pedophilia"
When we consider the sex offender defender mantra has been that sex offenders are not routinely assessed to determine if they are or are not pedophiles. No registry is going to say "he was a pedophile" and therefore Derek has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever regarding how many offenders are pedophiles and even if he did - that knowledge would be wasted on a fool like Derek.

I generally just shake my head in disbelief at this pathetic and despicable excuse for a man but then he always manages to outdo himself with attempts to lecture people with convoluted statements like this
Stop assuming every registrant is a pedophile and misusing the term. You have done enough damage by misusing and abusing this term.
"You have done enough damage"


How about this one:
How about a little truth in addressing this issue? Fanning the flames of blind hate and stupidity has not helped matters

Okay, I'll give you a little truth. Derek Logue is nauseating on his best days. He should quit fanning the pain of those who have been devastated by stupid selfish demented pricks like him by saying such profoundly idiotic things. It has not helped matters.

Hey! It's Bubbaj232!!!!

Sunday, July 31, 2011

How could we forget this disgusting freak?

Considering the comments Michael McCormick AKA Spike posted on GirlChat, is anyone really surprised when this is discovered:

Monroe man arrested on child sex charges

The Amherst County Sheriff’s Office on Friday arrested a Monroe man on charges involving a 7-year-old in the county.

Michael Wayne McCormick, 37, of Center Cove Lane, was charged with two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child under the age of 15, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, the Amherst County Sheriff’s Office said in a news release.

A search warrant was executed at McCormick’s residence and a computer and media storage devices were seized, among other items.

McCormick is being held without bond pending a preliminary hearing in Amherst Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

Eventually justice catches up to every one of them.

International Boylove Day - 2011

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Evil Unveiled strikes some more blows against organized pedophilia on the internet today. But make sure you have a barf bucket on hand before you check out the articles for any of these freaks:

WARNING: The following quotes are explicit and may contain triggers, discretion is advised.

William Vanatta AKA LBL

From a "story" written by William Vanatta:

"As I cleaned my cock with a tissue, he laid there, pants around his ankles, on his side, crying, his face to the filthy floor."

Leo Kan AKA Genghis

"It was the most horrible realization, that the friend whom I had come to trust and confide with for four years, who knew that "BL" was my most closely guarded secret, had decided to tell several other people without my knowledge. It was the worst betrayal I have ever encountered."

George "Sonny" Hoffman AKA Phil Phantom

From a "story" written by George Hoffman:

"Yes, Catherine, accept it. I told you before, you are a sex slave. It doesn't matter what you want, at least, not to your master. As long as you have a master, I have one, too."

Neil Nordeck AKA Byteman2000

From a "story" written by Neil Nordeck:

"At 5 months he was getting pretty good already of trying to reach for things. Feeling his little feet brushing over my ass and sac while I masturbated with him between my legs and I kneeling down I found myself getting close to cumming."

Jeremy Richards AKA Mrlonely

"My biggest fantasy is about being with a mom and her infant or toddler daughter. My biggest one is about a mom and her three or four year old and her six month old daughters. The three year old helps mom and I enjoy the baby.

Im a pervert thats for sure."

Happy International Boylove Day!

Alice Day Outings

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Evil Unveiled celebrates Alice Day, unveiling several members all from Newgon:

Christian Sleeman AKA Gyel_the_Omega

LostBoy AKA Iconoclast AKA David William Rexford

"I encourage pedophiles to march in gay pride parades either behind pedo-specic or pedo-friendly banners or as individuals carrying picket signs or flags with either slogans or logos such as BLogo on them."

Dave Bamford AKA David Middleton AKA Fatrat

"anyway im driffting of the subgect so i think the AOC should be lowerd to aroud 8-9"

Ben Mcgorrigan AKA Thagrote

"I've never had sexual contact with a child, but I think it is ethically acceptable to do so, within certain limits. E.g. I don't see anything wrong with conensual, safe sex between a 12 year old and an adult."

Jamesters AKA Jamie Stroud

"So this little girl and this older man fall in love with each other, but the older man knows that he'd risk getting into big trouble if they ever did anything sexual together, but one day he finally found a solution. He told the little girl, "You're 7 years old, right? But in doggy years that's make you 49 years old. That means I've found a loophole and we can finally have sex together... you'll just have to be in doggy position."

Matt AKA Matthew Powell

""I am anti-age of consent but agree that steps must be taken to protect/inform children before it is removed. In the mean time, I am in favour of lowering it to 13." "
Happy Alice Day!

Kill yourselves Pedophiles!

Monday, April 25, 2011

Had to post this as its the best thing you perverts can do. You pedophiles are filth and slime and you need to wipe yourselves off the face of the Earth!


Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Previously posted on January 2, 2009

Brandon Low AKA Sanepenguin works as a Software Development Engineer for a web-based company

"I am a well respected engineer with my company."

Brandon also happens to be a member of GirlChat and a proud pedophile

"I am a pedophile. In the sense that I can feel sexually atracted to prepubesecent children. Judge this as you choose."

"2) I have spent half the day posting as "lostlogic" on Dr. Phil's boards. That name is _CLEARLY_ linked to my real self, and I have linked my website on that site while stating that I am a pedophile
3) MY name is Brandon Low."

Brandon, like most of the posters at GirlChat, has trouble understanding what's wrong with adults and children having sexual relationships and talks about encrypting child pornography...
"what is wrong about an adult having a romantic loving relationship with a child? Please elaborate on this point."
"Why should collections of child porn be destroyed? I see no reason for this as long as the holder is careful and maintains extremely high standards of encryption etc. "
And here he sounds a lot like Lindsay Ashfords "even babies can consent to sex" argument
"An infant may not be able to debate topics such as this due to a lack of experience and knowledge, however once a child has learned the basic faculty of language, they CAN make decisions about what feels wrong and what feels right. For that matter a child's decisions about this will tend to be much more 'correct' when you get right down to it than an adults, because their decisions are not biased by years of being told what is right and wrong and told how to feel by society and the media. This is the point that I've been trying to make in my posts... that children KNOW what they want and KNOW what feels right."
I suppose Brandon probably doesn't have to worry about hiding anything, at least not financially; You see, the online web-based company that employs him is none other than Amazon.com, as in pedophile-books-for-sale-amazon.com.

We last highlighted Amazon's sale of books promoting pedophilia back in February 2007; Where Amazon was (and still does) sell the book of pedophile activist, Viamund the Rake, next to other pro-pedophile books such as "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers" or "Daddy's Little Boy," titles that you'd expect to find advertised in a NAMBLA Bulletin, rather than on a website which also markets books for children.

We weren't the first to pick up on Amazons sale of books promoting child abuse, you can read more about that here. And more recently Concerned Women for America has caused a stir regarding Amazons planned sale of the DVD "Hounddog," a movie which features scenes where a child is raped.

What's also interesting to note, is the case of Michael Williams, who was convicted in a Florida federal court for promoting child pornography on the Internet.
As part of a 2004 sting operation, an undercover Secret Service agent (using the screen name "Lisa--n--Miami") communicated with Williams in an Internet chat room. Williams allegedly wrote, "Dad of toddler has 'good' pics of her an (sic) me for swap of your toddler pics, or live cam." He posted nonpornographic photos of a young girl and claimed he had "hc," or hard-core, kiddie pictures, prosecutors contend.
A coalition of free speech and commercial interests were supporting Williams' constitutional claims, including the Free Speech Coalition, online media retailer Amazon.com and National Coalition Against Censorship.

Frighteningly, in Amazon.com's zeal to support Williams, they went so far as to ask the court "to overturn the law, saying it would restrict protected speech and allow for prosecution even if actual child pornography did not exist."

But Scalia methodically dismissed each of the hypotheticals raised by challengers and the appeals court, including whether movies that purported to show underage sex -- or even advertisements for such movies -- would violate the law. "We think it implausible that a reputable distributor of Hollywood movies, such as Amazon.com, believes that one of these films contains actual children engaging in actual or simulated sex on camera; and even more implausible that Amazon.com would intend to make its customers believe such a thing," he wrote.

What exactly is Amazon.com's vested interest in child pornography? Why are they so concerned about their right to distribute it?

You can contact Amazon.com with concerns about their employment of a proud pedophile, the sale of books promoting child abuse, and their position on child pornography through the following channels:


- Jeffrey P. Bezos, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

- Werner Vogels, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of Amazon.com

- Andrew Jassy, Senior Vice President, Web Services

- Steven Kessell, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Digital Media

- Marc Onetto, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Operations

- Diego Piacentini, Senior Vice President, International Retail

- Shelley Reynolds, Vice President, Wordwide Controller and Principal Accounting Officer

jwilke@amazon.com or
jeffreyw@amazon.com or
- Jeff Wilke, Senior Vice President, North America Retail

- Thomas Szkutak, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

- Adam Selipsky, Vice President

- Steve Rabuchin, Director

- Ian Freed, Vice President, Digital

- Michelle Wilson, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary

- Sam Wheeler, Director, Advertising & Partnerships

- Bill Carr, Vice President, Digital Media

- Jinesh Varia, Web Services Evangelist

- Colin Bodell, Vice President, Platform Operations of Amazon.com

- Mike Culver, Web Services Evangelist

jeff@vertexdev.com or
- Jeff Barr, Lead Web Services Evangelist

simoneb@amazon.lu or
- Simone Brunozzi, European Web Services Evangelist


Or by Mail:

Jeff Bezos
1200 12th Ave. South, Ste. 1200
Seattle, Wash. 98144
or call 206-266-1000

Join the boycott! Show your support and raise awareness by placing the following banner on your website:

Our children are not for sale, Boycott Amazon!!

To read more about Brandon Low AKA Sanepenguin, visit Wikisposure.

Kevin Morrissey: Pedophile Foster Parent

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Kevin Morrissey:
"You see boys all the time that are drop dead beautiful.. a lot of them will even walk or pose some way to accent their looks.. (Pull up their shirts, put their hands in their pockets, sit with thier legs up high or spread out). do you think they know they are sexy and do you think they are just flaunting with what they have, or are they 'trolling'?"
...I think that it's none of the above, that what it really is, is that he's a distorted pedophile that can't distinguish when a child is playing.

Allow me to introduce you to Kevin Morrissey or as he's known to his fellow perverts, "Boimatt." Kevin is a very prolific member of the online pedophile community, having held a position as a moderator on the notorious "BoyMoments" website and worked as an administrator on another forum for the sexually disordered, known as "Church of Jesus Among the Teachers."

Kevin has some interesting opinions, here's what he thinks of age of consent laws:
"i find it hard to understand that we accept that two 14 year old boys can intelligently explore their sexuality, yet those same two 14 year olds cannot explore their sexuality with a loving caring adult. It makes no sense whatsoever that the same two boys cannot engage an adult in their decision, and even turn to them for activity."
It actually makes a lot of sense when you consider that any "loving caring adult" wouldn't take advantage of children to satisfy their disgusting sexual urges. Children don't turn to adults for sex and we've already seen Kevins handicap when it comes to interpreting childrens behavior.

This next one will come as surprise to you all:
"I know there are strong opinions on this board both ways about CP. I am sure there are members who are avid collectors."
Kevin has a lot of questions about child pornography, he continues...
So does having CP, viewing, or enjoying it make you a bad person? How? Does it make the producer of it bad? How?
Here he seems to be confused about what's wrong with exploiting children for sex... I know: another surprise.

Other posts by Kevin appears to be possible admissions of guilt. What's scary is that Kevin's worked as foster parent, he actually kind of reminds me of someone else we all know. You can read his complete article at Evil-Unveiled: