Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: Cera on January 11, 2015, 04:33:09 PM
-
Disgusting: Clinton Snared In Pedophile Ring
Will having friends in high places exempt him from the rule of law?
Avatar of Kris Zane Kris Zane — March 27, 2014
According to former child sex slave Virginia Roberts and a class action lawsuit against convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, former President Bill Clinton was present during sex parties involving up to twenty underage girls at Epstein’s secluded island in the Caribbean. That flight records show Clinton was flown on numerous occasions to the island on Epstein’s private jet. Clinton had a close relationship with an employee of Epstein’s who compiled thousands of photos of nude young girls posed in lewd positions. And these photos were used as a catalog for Epstein to loan out his girls to powerful politicians and British royalty, including Bill Clinton.
According to the lawsuit:
Advertisement-content continues below
…Clinton was friends with an unnamed woman who “kept images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein… and photographed underage females in sɛҳuąƖly explicit poses.”
While Epstein was indicted and jailed for his pedophilia, Bill Clinton oddly has remained unscathed, more than likely by having friends in high places.
If Bill Clinton is in fact a pedophile, will the American people demand that he be put away for a very long time so that he can’t hurt any more children? Or will having friends in high places exempt him from the rule of law?
Time will tell.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/clinton-snared-pedophile-ring/#633wGwdso5BfH8sC.99
-
Does this come from the same people who claimed that Ratzinger was involved in ritual murder?
-
Next thing you know, people will be saying Francis is a Marxist! :shocked:
-
Does this come from the same people who claimed that Ratzinger was involved in ritual murder?
It is from Western Journalism Center, a credible source. It was founded by investigative journalist Joseph Farrah, who also founded World Net Daily. Are you having trouble with your cognitive dissonance?
-
Are you having trouble with your cognitive dissonance?
:applause:
-
If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.
-
If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.
It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.
-
I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority. Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.
Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ? Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course. But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.
-
If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.
It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.
Bill Clinton never touched Juanita B. :detective:
-
I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority. Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.
Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ? Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course. But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.
They still consider them children past the age of puberty because that's how the legal verbiage sees them. It's not always the most judicious idea and sometimes it will backfire (like in Connecticut), but laws are laws.
-
I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority. Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.
Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ? Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course. But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.
They still consider them children past the age of puberty because that's how the legal verbiage sees them. It's not always the most judicious idea and sometimes it will backfire (like in Connecticut), but laws are laws.
Yes. What I am specifically criticising is that they use language and rhetoric that suggests that they can't tell the difference between a legal fiction and reality. It smacks of positivism, as if the law makes something true or false, since it was agreed upon by the general public. The absurdity is that, if the legal age of majority in the US could be changed to seventeen, suddenly all of the seventeen year olds become adults. Then a man who commits sɛҳuąƖ sins with a seventeen year-old girl suddenly is no longer a pedophile, whereas the day before he was hated and judged for being so.
I don't understand why I would get the down-thumbs that I did. Apparently there are many people who believe that an individual becomes an adult in fact the day of his eighteenth birthday, whereas he could have fathered a child for years before this date, or had a relationship with an eighteen or nineteen year-old young woman. But he was a child. Why ? The law defines him as such. But is it possible to judge outside the law, since laws change ? We all know that one becomes an adult as recognised by the law in the United States at age eighteen, but what I dispute is that the law reflects reality.
I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either. But the fact is that a post-pubescent girl of seventeen years is not a child in anything but a legal sense, and a man who would commit sins with her would not be a paedophile or child molestor, otherwise the terms are robbed of any meaning. Anybody who says otherwise needs a remedial biology lesson.
-
I would be interested to hear any arguments at all from the down-thumbers.
-
No matter what age. Rape is rape. It is a terrible crime and pure evil.
-
No matter what age. Rape is rape. It is a terrible crime and pure evil.
Yes. Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about.
-
I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority. Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.
Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ? Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course. But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.
And your point is?
Please tell me your point is not that what happened to this child sex slave is acceptable. And do you support lowering the legal age of consent? If so, you would be in company with NAMBLA and other pedophiles.
-
If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.
It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.
Bill Clinton never touched Juanita B. :detective:
Roscoe, please give your sources.
Check this out:
http://therightscoop.com/bill-clintons-war-on-women-1999-juanita-broaddrick-interview-with-dateline-nbc/
-
No matter what age. Rape is rape. It is a terrible crime and pure evil.
Yes. Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about.
Unfortunately, that IS what we are talking about. What part of "child sex slave" do you not understand? Children who are forced into prostitution are being raped. Only someone who is fond of porn would fail to understand that.
-
Cera, he is questioning whether the word pedophile is being correctly used. It has a bearing on the nature and gravity of this case, but I suspect he raised the question mostly because clarification is generally desirable due to widespread misuse of the term. So you need to cool it. He isn't defending sex slavery; the very suggestion (among others that you lobbed) is sheer filth. For your reference, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Pedophilia, also spelled paedophilia , psychosɛҳuąƖ disorder in which an adult has sɛҳuąƖ fantasies about or engages in sɛҳuąƖ acts with a prepubescent child of the same or the opposite sex.
-
I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority. Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.
Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ? Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course. But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.
And your point is?
There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about the meaning and intention of what I wrote. Graham explained my meaning and intention perfectly. I encourage you to re-read my post in that light. Thank you.
-
No matter what age. Rape is rape. It is a terrible crime and pure evil.
Yes. Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about.
Unfortunately, that IS what we are talking about. What part of "child sex slave" do you not understand? Children who are forced into prostitution are being raped. Only someone who is fond of porn would fail to understand that.
The discussion at hand revolves around the precise value and meaning of the word "paedophile" in relation to individuals who in former times were considered marriageable, that is, maids who have achieved sɛҳuąƖ maturity. It's a legal discussion. Any other meaning is contrary to what I intended and, I dare say, the plain meaning of the words I chose.
-
If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.
It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.
Bill Clinton never touched Juanita B. :detective:
Roscoe, please give your sources.
Check this out:
http://therightscoop.com/bill-clintons-war-on-women-1999-juanita-broaddrick-interview-with-dateline-nbc/
One of his flings( DK Browning) from the early days was asked by G Putnam if 'Billy' ever used the nigerian word. She responded-- ' not only that, he used the "GD Nigerian word....:
BC never toouched J Broderick :cheers:
-
I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.
On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."
Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."
-
I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.
When was he convicted?
On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."
Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."
The poster in question specifically disavowed suggesting any legal changes:
I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either.
Among Catholics, by the way, we would be discussing the marriageable age, rather than the age of consent to fornication. A 15 year old girl being chastely courted with a view to marriage is obviously not comparable to sɛҳuąƖ predation.
Your insistence on current US law as the arbiter of good and evil is, to say the least, inexplicably provincial. To speak only of the Church, and not of varying civil laws: prior to 1917, Church law gave 12 as the marriageable age; in the 1917 Code, the age was raised to 14 for girls and 16 for boys. I believe these ages still obtain in the "new code." Would you say that the Church's law is pure evil?
-
I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.
When was he convicted?
On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."
Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."
The poster in question specifically disavowed suggesting any legal changes:
I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either.
Among Catholics, by the way, we would be discussing the marriageable age, rather than the age of consent to fornication. A 15 year old girl being chastely courted with a view to marriage is obviously not comparable to sɛҳuąƖ predation.
Your insistence on current US law as the arbiter of good and evil is, to say the least, inexplicably provincial. To speak only of the Church, and not of varying civil laws: prior to 1917, Church law gave 12 as the marriageable age; in the 1917 Code, the age was raised to 14 for girls and 16 for boys. I believe these ages still obtain in the "new code." Would you say that the Church's law is pure evil?
I can add nothing to this, apart from thanking PereJoseph and Graham for defending a rational, Catholic assessment of the matter in the face of muddleheaded, panicky emotionalism.
-
Legal age for marriage in Alabama is 14, if I'm not mistaken.
-
I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.
When was he convicted?
On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."
Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."
The poster in question specifically disavowed suggesting any legal changes:
I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either.
Among Catholics, by the way, we would be discussing the marriageable age, rather than the age of consent to fornication. A 15 year old girl being chastely courted with a view to marriage is obviously not comparable to sɛҳuąƖ predation.
Your insistence on current US law as the arbiter of good and evil is, to say the least, inexplicably provincial. To speak only of the Church, and not of varying civil laws: prior to 1917, Church law gave 12 as the marriageable age; in the 1917 Code, the age was raised to 14 for girls and 16 for boys. I believe these ages still obtain in the "new code." Would you say that the Church's law is pure evil?
The fact that the corrupt AK governor was not even charged is about government corruption, not about him being innocent. btw did you watch the Juanita Broderick video?
In 1917, lowering the age of consent to benefit pedophiles, pederasts, and other assorted predators was not on anyone's radar screen.
-
Hollywood and politics are full of pedophiles and perverts.
Pedophilia and sɛҳuąƖ perversion is why the Church is in a state of apostacy.