This has been coming for years. Ever since Anthony Kennedy decided that his view of human sexuality was the only one permitted in the United States we have been gathering speed in what will inevitably be the declaration by the Supreme Court that pedophilia is a Constitutionally protected right and the EEOC and other federal agencies will set about making us honor that particular perversion.
Back in September we saw one of the first blatant efforts to legitimize pedophilia. Salon published a piece titled I’m a pedophile, but not a monster (ummm, no).
Leftist news outlet plays dreamy footage of child as pedophile discusses sick fantasy
Paul Joseph Watson – MAY 20, 2016
A video posted on Salon’s Facebook page shows the leftist news organization’s resident pedophile, Todd Nickerson, explaining how he masturbated over a 5-year-old girl while romanticized video footage of a child is used to illustrate his sick fantasy.
Nickerson first rose to prominence when Salon.com gave him a platform to explain how lusting after children was merely an alternative “sexual orientation” and that people should be “understanding and supportive” towards pedophiles.
When conservatives dared to express skepticism towards that premise, Nickerson immediately claimed to be a victim of the “right-wing hate machine” in an article entitled I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters.
If you thought that Salon couldn’t go any lower than this, then think again.
A new video features Nickerson talking about how he fell in love with a 5-year-old girl he was babysitting who was “advanced for her age”.
“A lot of my fantasies actually revolve around little girls who are in some way more powerful than I am,” states Nickerson as footage plays of a child in a pink dress dancing and twirling.
“Eventually my attraction became overwhelming to the point I had to go relieve myself in the bathroom,” says Nickerson.
In other words, Nickerson masturbated over a 5-year-old girl he was sexually attracted to, and Salon.com thinks it’s in good taste to illustrate this sickness with a dreamy clip of a 5-year-old girl playfully dancing.
Nickerson goes on to explain how there are more pedophiles than society thinks and that he has met a lot of them online.
Although Nickerson and Salon have tried to argue that ‘supporting’ pedophiles who manage to resist the urge to molest children is a positive thing, Nickerson has previously admitted that he “WOULD engage in sex play with a child that I loved if she wanted it and initiated it. I will never deny that.”
Nickerson also claimed that children like pedophiles and desire to be around them, and that the 5-year-old girl he was babysitting once “came onto” him.
INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIES ~ NORTHFIELD, MN
Ralph Underwager (1929 –2003) was an American minister and psychologist who rose to prominence as a defense witness for adults accused of child sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990s. Until his death in 2003, he was the director of the Institute for Psychological Therapies is a research group for clinical psychology in Northfield, Minnesota which he founded in 1974. Wikipedia
Hollida Wakefield (Vita) Hollida Wakefield has been providing evaluation, assessment, and treatment for sexual offenders and victims of sexual abuse since 1976. She has conducted several research projects dealing with various questions about child sexual abuse and written extensively in the area. She has conducted professional workshops around the world in how to interview children so as to allow them to provide the most reliable information they can. She provides expert consultation and forensic services in a wide range of legal issues including sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. http://ipt-forensics.com/staff/index.htm
Ms. Wakefield and Dr. Underwager are the publishers of the journal, “Issues in Child Abuse Accusations.” They co-edited the volumes: “Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse” and “The Real World of Child Interrogations.” They have written numerous articles on the interrogation of children, the role of the psychologist in assessing child abuse cases, the evaluation of child witnesses, and the manipulation of the child abuse system. They regularly appear as expert witnesses and give training sessions to jurists, psychologists, and laymen.
He is accused of being a supporter of pedophilia because of controversial statements he made in an interview to Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia Underwager was also closely associated with the fathers’ rights (a founding board member of the Childrens Right Council -CRC) until he resigned after exposure of his pro-pedophilia interview published in the Dutch based journal “PAIDIKA”, which labels itself as “The Official Journal for Advocating the Lifestyle of the Pedophile
Interview in Amsterdam in June 1991 by “Paidika,” a European pro-pedophile publication. Editor-in-Chief, Joseph Geraci
PAIDIKA: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individuals?
RALPH UNDERWAGER: Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don’t think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God’s will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: “This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I’ve made.”
Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, “You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it’s no good. You’re putting me in prison, you’re doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit.” What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, “I believe this is in fact part of God’s will.” They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs).
Continue Reading: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html
Family Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03
Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. 
Very occasionally, men reporting abuse of their children have also been targeted for retaliation through family court.  However, the systematic mishandling of domestic violence and child molest cases as “custody disputes” is based in a financial corruption scheme that calls for diverting grant program funding through “high conflict” cases, in the guise of promoting “fatherhood” and “shared parenting” post-divorce. 
Rather than assisting men become responsible parents, “Responsible Fatherhood”, “Access to Visitation Enforcement” (supervised visitation for noncustodial parents), “Child Support Enforcement” and similar federal programs perpetuate abuse of women and children through the legal system.  Abusive men striving to maintain control over their victims are provided an array of benefits, not only to get custody and get out of paying child support, but to terrorize the mothers of their children and society in general.  Government programs are not producing responsible fathers, but motherless children, in order to advance the agenda of the so-called “fathers’ rights” movement.
“Fathers’ rights” as a political agenda, has nothing to do with actual parenting rights or responsibilities. Fathers’ rights organizations are misogynist anarchy and militia groups that define fatherhood in terms of male ownership of children in male-headed households. In order to maintain control over “families”, fathers’ groups promote violence, advocating the use of “domestic discipline”.  Their membership is comprised of virulent men “fighting feminism” and affirmative action, establishing “patriarchy under God” and even trying to repeal the 19th Amendment. 
There are women affiliated with fatherhood groups, primarily second wives who support their husbands in denying ex-wives and biological mothers the right to parent their own children. Identifying themselves as “independent feminists”, they also join sociopathic men in fighting obscenity laws and identifying sex and access to pornography as primary fathers’ “rights”. 
Fathers’ rights groups have devised strategies that normalize deviant male behavior, while pathologizing normal motherhood. When mothers report domestic violence or child sexual abuse, their complaints are dismissed as a matter of “radical feminists” making malicious and false allegations to turn children against fathers. “False allegations” is the primary tactic used to provide assistance with litigation against women trying to maintain custody of their children in divorces from abusive men. 
Criminalizing mothers’ attempts to protect their children, legalizing corporal punishment and normalizing father-child sex, are all necessary in order to legitimize court rulings granting pedophiles, batterers and other abusive men visitation rights and custody of children. In family court, this is accomplished through the “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) legal strategy. 
This may come as a huge surprise to many Catholics, but the Holy See is claiming it doesn’t really bear legal responsibility for how they or even their priests behave. Too good to be true? Actually, too horrible to be believed. What the Vatican is claiming this week before a United Nations panel is that, really, the question of priests sexually abusing little kids is a matter for local law enforcement. And, no, the physical pain and mental anguish inflicted on children by pedophile prelates should not be called “torture,” at least as defined by the U.N.
When the Vatican’s U.N. ambassador appeared in front of the U.N.’s Convention Against Torture in Geneva on Monday, the issues were about jurisdiction, not spiritual guidance and the Roman Catholic Church’s moral responsibility for errant clerics. “It should be stressed, particularly in light of much confusion, that the Holy See has no jurisdiction over every member of the Catholic Church,” said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, who represented the Vatican as a signatory of the convention on torture.