SEX DRUGS AND ROMAN POLANSKI

Nobody really doubted the pint sized molester would get off did they? We could hope but we knew just how the Zionist criminal society protects itself by circling their own criminals, denying guilt and attempting to have the rest of us question our own good sense and observation in favour of the slighted, in this case, pedophile.

I still think of that STUPID line that cost Whoopi Goldberg years worth of my fan following by saying "it was not rape rape. Huh? What am I missing here?

Applying that same theory, does that mean the Gazan Holocaust was not "kill kill"? When does rape NOT enter the picture between an adult male and a drugged teenager? If I had nothing better to do, I might ponder on that. Instead I will just write Whoopi off as another Zionatzi right up there with Adam Sandler.

Personally I believe if you do a crime in the 30's and are charged many decades later, the trual should be set to the standards that were in vogue at the same time.

Just another win in the box office of life Pedophile Polanski?

By David Coleman

TRUTHDIG

July 13, 2010

Should a crime be viewed through a lens adjusted to the era during which the crime was committed ~ or viewed through a lens conformed to a later time, after social values and laws have changed?

This seems like an easy question to answer when the adjustment in the view of the crime’s seriousness is downward.

Take, for example, marijuana. Thirty years ago, possession of marijuana in California was punishable by a sentence to state prison. That was a sentence sometimes ~ even if infrequently ~ imposed. People who possessed marijuana for personal use in the ’70s were sent off to prison to serve “hard time” in comparison to a probationary, local county jail sentence.

Today, of course, one cannot be sentenced to prison in California for possessing marijuana for personal use. Indeed, since the passage of Proposition 36, a marijuana user cannot be sentenced to a day in jail. A fine of $100 is the maximum punishment. And if enough voters in California express a preference in November to legalize possession of marijuana, no punishment whatsoever will be exacted.

Now, test your opinion about bringing Roman Polanski to further justice with this mind experiment: Imagine that his doppelganger, let’s call him Truman Polanski, was arrested and an old, outstanding arrest warrant was found. Lo and behold, assume it was discovered that Truman had not served his prison sentence for a conviction of marijuana possession imposed 40 years ago!

Would the public, would the Los Angeles district attorney, would conservative law-and-order advocates argue that Truman Polanski should serve a prison term for the drug crime he committed ~ but has not as yet been punished for ~ under the law as it existed in 1978?

I think you know what the answer would be. And that answer frames the Polanski sentencing problem.

The 34-year-old lens through which we view Roman Polanski’s crime is clouded because society’s viewpoint about his “sex crime” has swung in the opposite direction from that of a drug crime. Standards for evaluating whether sex occurred consensually have evolved in the past four decades on campus, in the workplace and in the law.

Even the language employed to discuss serious crime has changed. Despite the fact that the same office he now heads agreed to a plea of a charge of having underage sex, or statutory rape as it was then called, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley now describes the case as one where, “Mr. Polanski [was] … convicted of serious child sex charges.”

Really, Mr. Cooley? That does not appear to have been the view of your office in 1978. The Los Angeles district attorney’s office agreed to a plea deal then that probably would result in a probationary sentence for what Cooley now calls a “serious child sex” offense.

The facts of the case haven’t changed. But attitudes, language and the politics of crime have escalated quite drastically when a sexual offense is involved. Thus, the question remains: If society’s view of the crime changes, should the offender be punished under the new, more condemning view or the more tolerant one prevalent at the time of the crime?

What would have happened in 1978 in adjudication of Polanski’s case?

I was a new deputy public defender in a Northern California county in 1978 when Polanski was charged. I have recently read the police reports, including that of a Sgt. Phillip VanAtter, who was last heard from as the investigating detective in the O.J. Simpson case and who, Zelig-like, seems to crop up in every notorious West Los Angeles crime investigation.

On the one hand, based on the facts from that investigation that the prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, sex with an underage girl (aka statutory rape) would have been a slam dunk. On the other hand, what about sex with a precocious teenager in Jack Nicholson’s hot tub when the girl’s mother had encouraged Polanski to use her daughter for a risqué photo shoot? Based on any theory of criminal liability—other than that it was a crime to have sex with a girl of her age—it was far from a slam dunk. A trial would have produced the exact outcome the DA obtained by agreement: a conviction on the underage sex charge and nothing more. Everyone, including the DA and the judge, would have shared that opinion.

What role did Polanski’s celebrity play then?

An indigent public defender client with no sex offense record would most likely not have been sent to prison on an underage sex conviction plea in 1978. Need I say that an award-winning Hollywood director ~ who barely escaped the Holocaust and whose pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was slain in the Hollywood Hills by the Manson family ~ is far from the profile of a defendant who would have been sent to prison in 1978 for the crime of statutory rape?

Based on 35 years of experience as a California criminal defense attorney, my professionally educated guess is that the agreement between the judge, the deputy DA and defense counsel for Polanski was that he was only going to prison for a 90-day diagnostic observation period. In that era, the 90-day diagnostic was used by judges (and acceded to by prosecution and defense) to give a defendant a two-to-three-month “taste of steel,” in the criminal justice argot of the day.

But all criminal justice lawyers and judges knew that a more important reason for such a sentencing step was to convey to the public (and the defendant to some degree) that a prison sentence might be imposed. The strong expectation of all involved was usually that in 90 days, upon returning to court, the defendant’s real sentence would be a shorter county jail sentence with credit for the time served in custody during the diagnostic observation period.

Polanski’s lawyer had the resources to propose a “local diagnostic” carried out by doctors and experts in Los Angeles while he remained free. That step could have been taken ~ in lieu of shunting him off to prison ~ if there was really any need was for diagnostic, psychological review to justify (i.e. furnish “expert” cover for) not punishing Polanski as a potentially recidivist sex offender. But it wasn’t. No new information or insight was expected. Unsurprisingly, none materialized during the prison observation period.

The real need was for it to appear to the public that the judge and the DA were dealing sternly with Polanski. Undoubtedly, Polanski’s counsel told him ~ and he had every right to believe ~ that the 90-day diagnostic was almost certainly for appearances’ sake and he would most likely receive credit for the time it took, combined with a sentence of probation after the diagnostic period in prison custody ended. If that was not the expectation of Polanski and his attorney, there was little reason for him to have agreed to the guilty plea to statutory rape he entered.

Having fled, does Polanski deserve the benefit of that retro sentence?

This is a different question. This question is whether the act of fleeing itself should be punished.

If it should be punished, it should (and could) be charged as a distinct and different crime from the underage sex charge. The L.A. district attorney or federal authorities can prosecute Polanski for this separate crime of failing to appear or other crimes relating to persons who flee the jurisdiction of state or federal authorities.

But the offense of fleeing should not be conflated with the cries for Polanski’s scalp that emanate from the victim’s rights advocates and from those groups that advocate harsher treatment for any offender who commits an offense related to sex. Despite their purported victim-centric viewpoint, they overlook the inconvenient truth that the “victim” in the Polanski case does not wish to be dragged into an advocacy group’s agenda. When a convicted offender flees the jurisdiction, the “victim” is the state.

That, to be sure, is not the victim they have in mind.

The renewed focus on Roman Polanski’s immorality and karma also ought not obscure something about this case that may be fishy in California’s system of justice.

The smell may have reached Switzerland, reading between the lines of news reports of the decision.

Over the past three decades, pursuit of the extradition of Roman Polanski by the Los Angeles district attorney could at best be described as fitful. Predecessors of the current district attorney seemed to have taken the case somewhat less seriously, an observation quite apparent to the Swiss decision-makers. Whether Mr. Cooley’s imminent run as the Republican candidate for California attorney general is a factor is something that only Cooley and his staff would know. If it is, they are unlikely to say so.

Despite today’s fulminations by the L.A. district attorney and the U.S. State Department, the behavior of both prosecutors and of a now deceased judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles has created questions about the administration of justice. There has been no coherent explanation by a series of deputy district attorneys associated with the case in 1978 about what was said privately (or not said) to the judge who would sentence Polanski. Those questions should have been resolved years ago. Or better yet, they should have never arisen in the first place.

The need for justice to be administered equally and transparently has not changed with the times. In 1978, or now, the behavior and contradictory statements of many of the public officials involved in the adjudication of Polanski’s case created questions other than the ones about the prurient Polanski behavior upon which the public and the media are fixated.

Those questions are sleeping dogs. Prosecutors and judges in the courts of Los Angeles County may take some solace from the decision not to extradite Polanski. Switzerland ~ the home of the St. Bernard ~ has given those officials room to let those dogs lie.

DOG POET: THE POLANSKI GAMBIT AND THE OLD WORLD ORDER

It is interesting that a good amount of my recent posts have been on the topic of Satanism and child abuse, child abductions, etc etc. It just so happens that this post is all about this topic and goes into a different form of detail about the matter, in a way that only the Dog Poet, Les Visible, can verbalize so succinctly and poetically, yet so hard hitting and powerfully. But first two entirely appropriate quotes, four if you enlarge the thumb and read those as well.

“What we cannot legislate, we will buy. What we cannot buy, we will degrade. We will blow every fuse of enlightenment until it looks like a vandalized, neon sign! And while God is busy at his peephole ~ as he deigns us with his disapproval ~ as he lumbers around his empty kingdom like some overfed colonial governor ~ as God sleeps late, we will win.” ~ Satan in The Devil's Advocate

“They forswear their own moral independence; hold themselves, by oath, prepared to sin, at the mandate of an erring mortal; and labour, with all the artifice of an exhaustless subtlety, in teaching the myriads of Adam’s sinful race how to sin-ay, and sin, too, habitually and systematically, with full and absolute impunity. With the ensigns of peace and good will blazoned before them and the songs of freedom on their lips, these hosts go forth into all lands, to trample on the throne of kings, to foment insubordination among subects, to bind the conscience in fetters, and stifle the first breath of rational liberty!” ~ Alexander Duff on The Jesuits

Les Visible

Smoke and Mirrors

July 18, 2010

Dog Poet Transmitting.......

Of course Roman Polanski is a mainline Satanist and the desire to make him a public item is not accidental by any means. This is a calculated event. The recent refusal by the Swiss to extradite Polanski extends the drama for the purpose of ongoing misdirection.

The fact is that there are forces in motion to blow the lid off of an international traffic and practice of sex with underage girls and boys of any and all ages. There are several reasons for this practice in relation to satanic ritual.

One of these is the despoiling of innocence which is a trademark of the path.

It also serves to put the practitioner beyond the pale and is one of the steps on the way to darker things. Each step is a progression toward the main event that I don’t think I have to illustrate. It’s described in many texts and retrospectives.

Another reason is to bind the member to the order and therefore compromise him or her into various uses that benefit the order, such as the commission of crimes on behalf of the order that profit by way of information, other gain or the use of one’s position in government or business to accomplish certain ends.

It’s a well known method of blackmail, which can also result in the member not doing certain things that are a requirement of their position, such as legitimately representing the wishes of their constituents or employer.

Another reason is because it is against the laws of a nation, state or religion. Satanism involves the reversal of the natural order of things both in terms of general society and of Nature itself.

The effect of certain practices upon the mind of the person performing them sets up propensities and mindsets that break down barriers set in place during one’s formative years.

This practice is widespread in the religions and governments around the globe. Over the last few decades a lot of evidence has surfaced which indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a longstanding European operation headquartered in Belgium that extends to Portugal, Spain, France and the U.K.

Certainly it, no doubt, is extant in all of the other countries but those named have been prominent in the news in recent times. Any and all investigations come up upon a wall of official resistance which has also been reported in the mainstream media.

An operation of the same sort and magnitude exists in the United States and has also been the subject of national press reportage. The Franklin Scandal that reached into the Reagan, White House is one and is directly connected to George Bush Sr.

Polanski is being offered up as a tribute from TPTB to take the focus off of far more critical people and things that have to do with the natural unveiling of such practices in this apocalyptic period. What is happening to the Catholic Church is an example of how this sort of thing is taking place at this time.

Those who run these operations for the purpose of controlling people in positions of authority are not unaware of the conditions of the times. They hope to bypass the majority of possible exposures by manipulating what comes into the public view and throwing as many people as necessary into the public eye in order to protect the main portion of the organization and their own station and person.

They are prepared to sacrifice the entire operation in certain countries and to eliminate those who might be in a position to expose those higher up by getting rid of a certain level of the chain. In this way those who are gone can be blamed for the whole affair and presented as the highest level without there being anyone in a position to point further up the ladder.

After a certain point the identity of those at a certain level is only revealed to those directly below. They have all kinds of fail-safes in place and people positioned in every area of government, the judiciary and law enforcement as well as in the media and the corporate world to insure that only a certain part of the operation and its practices will ever come to light.

It should be known that there is a great deal of dissension in the ranks at the moment.

This is the case in every area of the temporal world.

The old order of things is being done away with

and the survival of Satanism

and all similar groups

needs to transfer itself

into the framework

of the new systems replacing the old order.

Those engaged in the perpetuation of their order know that every facet of government and religion are going to be changed in the same way they have been changed in the past and grafted on to the systems that preceded them just as they were previously.

It should be obvious to anyone paying any kind of attention that nearly all of the members of their government and religious organizations are compromised in one way or another and it is not just by way of bribery and the promise of gain or advancement.

Any number of people would not ordinarily be compelled to behave in the way we see so many of our officials behaving.

It is beyond the boundaries of normal affairs to see the whole of your elected officials tolerating and supporting things like the gratuitous murders that took place in Operation Cast Lead or the killing of those on the flotilla.

It makes no kind of sense that those in the highest positions in the Catholic Church would behave as they do in the face of what keeps surfacing into the public view.

The influence of the Central Banks and the world markets in causing the ruinous bailouts which were presented as a protection of the interests of the common citizens and for the purpose of making money available for loan and the continued smooth functioning of the system can be seen as the scam that it was just by noting that money is not available to lend, which goes completely against the argument for its having taken place to begin with.

That this was willingly engaged in and supported, speaks of unknown pressures that must be more than what would be obvious. It does not make sense that nearly all elected officials would toss their reputations into the fire just for the promise of gain and the maintenance of their positions when they could have been secured in so many other ways.

We’re not talking about people being fooled by simple lies when these people are trained to spot the transparency of the arguments. These are people who, in the main, were elected because they have some background in these matters.

It is the height of absurdity to accept that no one in a position of authority would be speaking out against the push to attack Iran after the same arguments were used to justify the Iraq invasion.

It is also unbelievable that no one in a position of authority would have come forth to question what took place on 9/11, especially those who are no longer in office now.

Every time someone in a position to question does so, they turn out to be those whose presentations give the appearance that they are senile or otherwise impaired, such as that officer who was the head of the war college and who comes off sounding like Mr. Potato Head.

Anyone who has been exposed to presentations given by the leading spokesmen for the 9/11 truth movement has encountered the numbing boredom of their demonstrations; their obvious desire for celebrity, their pandering for personal gain and their avoidance of naming the actual perpetrators.

There are some noteworthy exceptions but these are soon removed from their positions of prominence or routinely ignored by both the left and the right.

The good news is that its all falling apart and all of the people involved in all of these things are running scared and trying to plug up a leaking dyke with far two few fingers and hands.

The basic integrity of the institutions of the departing age is crumbling away from within. It can’t be supported.

We are about to see all kinds of astonishing, interesting and unusual things coming to light.

The force of the unveiling apocalypse increases by the day.

You can’t hide things in a room where the walls have suddenly gone missing.

End Transmission…….

This weeks non broadcast of the radio show will be available for download by Monday morning (if not before) by clicking on 'Visible's Radio Shows' in the right side menu of this page.

Smoke and Mirrors

The New Shangri-La

Mirrors Mirror

PEDOPHILIA PERMISSABLE IN EUROPE IF YOU ARE POWERFUL!

The Roman Polanski story has opened a major can of extremely putrid worms in Europe, sparking off in France, when the Jewish Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterand, who is openly gay, angrily took the government and media to task for not defending such a great artist as Polanski.

JUST IN!!!!! POLANSKI IS GONE. APPARENTLY HE IS HAVING MEDICAL TESTING AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE HE IS! POLANSKI REMOVED FOR MEDICAL TESTS, WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN at THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. Back to our regularly scheduled article.

On September 1, 2009, the French cultural groups of France were thrilled because Frédéric Mitterrand ~ TV showman, film producer, writer, gay activist and nephew of the last socialist president ~ was named France’s new Minister for Culture and Communication.

On September 27 admitted rapist and fugitive Polanski was arrested by Swiss police for possible extradition to the United States for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl. He has been denied bail. The Swiss fear he might, well, flee. Mitterrand, dumbfounded by the arrest of his buddy in perversion, also said he "regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them."

On October 7, Mitterrand himself was identified as a homosexual pederast. Minister Mitterrand, had openly boasted of victimizing destitute, young boys in Bangkok. He admitted he knew, "the sordid details" of the sex trade.

People in power commonly surround themselves with those who share their ideals and protect their own secrets. French President Zionist Jew Nicolas Sarkozy knew of Mitterrand’s pedophilia when he appointed the criminal to his "rainbow cabinet." Sarkozy had read The Bad Life and called Mitterrand’s “sex tourism book 'courageous.’”

Despite their public personas as child sex predators, Polanski and Mitterrand were lionized by the French elite. Yes, the media is as Zionist owned in Europe as it is in North America. It dispenses to the fold just the information they should be cognizant of, leaving out much truth and logic in the doing.

Please bear in mind that, according to the Jewish Talmud, it is perfectly fine to have sexual relations with children as young as "three years plus a day". That fact surely comes into play whether or not it is mentioned in the mainstream media.

Frédéric Mitterrand admitted to

paying for sex with 'young boys’ in Thailand

By Henry Samuel in Paris
Telegraph Co. UK
October 9, 2009

Frédéric Mitterrand, France’s openly gay culture minister, was under pressure to resign after it emerged that he had admitted to paying “young boys” for sexual acts while on holiday in Thailand.

The revelations in his 2005 autobiography “The Bad Life” have come back to haunt Mr Mitterrand after he emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of Roman Polanski, the film director currently detained in Switzerland in connection with an outstanding conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in the US in 1977.

In his book, Mr Mitterrand, the nephew of the late Socialist president François Mitterrand, wrote:

“I got into the habit of paying for boys. All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excite me enormously. One could judge this abominable spectacle from a moral standpoint but it pleases me beyond the reasonable.”

In other words, all this self centered pedophile cared about was immediate gratification, not at all about normal morals and decency.

Curiously, there was little outcry when the book was published in 2005. However, Mr Mitterrand’s tastes were brought to the fore on Monday by Marine Le Pen, daughter of the far-right National Front leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, on a political chat show.

Miss Le Pen read out a passage in which Mr Mitterrand wrote:

“The profusion of very attractive and immediately available young boys puts me in a state of desire that I no longer need to hinder nor hide...as I know that I will not be refused.”

Such ego and self confidence even in the sickest of perversions! Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On Tuesday, the opposition Socialists joined the chorus of outrage. Benoît Hamon, the party spokesman, said:

“As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.”

Mr Mitterrand responded on Tuesday by saying he was “flabbergasted” by these reactions to his words both recent and in the past.

I tell you these people just do not have the same moral values as most of humanity. In fact, one might wonder if they are even human.

“If the National Front drag me through the mud then it is an honour for me. If a leftist politician drags me through the mud then it is a humiliation for him,” he added.

Besides showing his overweening self-centered idiocy, WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS FOOL SAYING? Once again the focus is on himself but sounds the blathering fool.

Xavier Bertrand, the head of Mr Sarkozy’s right-wing UMP party, defended Mr Mitterrand.

“The Socialists are now on the same ground as the extreme right, it’s incredible. One is not obliged to use private life for political ends.”

In other words, were a serial rapist released tomorrow, he could run for the presidency of America without having to own up to his past "indiscretions"?

Mr Mitterrand, who joined the cabinet in June, was considered a great catch for Mr Sarkozy and proof of his “open” style of government; the minister comes from a grand Socialist family and is admired by many in the Left-wing cultural establishment. Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the first lady, was said to have had a hand in his nomination.

Politicians from across the spectrum criticized his vitriolic attack on the arrest of Mr Polanski, a French citizen who US authorities wish to extradite over his 1977 conviction. Mr Mitterrand initially described the pursuit of the director as “callous” and “absolutely horrifying”, but then toned down his criticism.

He sounded about as idiotic and senseless as the rest of the elite and the stars who defend the pint-sized pervert Polanski.

Telegraph Co. UK
October 7, 2009

Frédéric Mitterrand admits

paying for sex but denies paedophilia

Frédéric Mitterrand, France's culture minister, on Thursday denied that he had paid boys for sex, in an impassioned response to critics on the right and left demanding that he resign over a candid book recounting encounters with male prostitutes in Thailand.

Mr Mitterand appeared on French national television to defend himself, claiming that when he boasted of paying "boys" for sex, he in fact meant adults.

Does this mean he fancies vertically challenged adults and has a problem discerning age?

"I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in," the 62-year-old nephew of François Mitterrand, the late Socialist president, said in an interview on TF1 television.

Did his nose just grow another inch in length?

When I did a search for Mitterand, this picture popped up but there was no other information, just the image. I cannot even be sure it IS him to be honest, but it showed up under his name.

The exploits described in Mitterand's book came back to haunt him earlier this week, after he provoked criticism by jumping to the defense of Roman Polanski, the film director currently detained in Switzerland in connection with an outstanding conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in the US in 1977.

On Thursday, Mitterrand said that the book was not a strict autobiography. He admitted to "errors" in paying for sex in the past, but said he had relations only with consenting men his age.

"A mistake certainly, a crime no, nor a fault because each time I was with people of my age, [or] who were five years older than me. There was never the slightest ambiguity ~ and they were consenting."

I find these words a tad difficult to believe considering the circumstances. OHHHHH Another inch!

Earlier on Thursday, Nicolas Sarkozy backed his embattled culture minister, with the French president's spokesman dismissing criticism of Mr Mitterrand as "pathetic"

Again no surprise. Talmudic Jews have no problem with pedophilia, it is the rest of us who are in the wrong.

Mitterand, ever the debonair aristocrat.

WEAK IN FLESH ~ WEAK IN SPIRIT

National Post

Rallying to the defence of director Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland, French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand declared the situation "horrifying," and suggested that if the cultural world didn't come to the rapist's defence, "it would mean there is no culture in our country."

CULTURE = PEDOPHILIA?

He may have a case ~ if you consider drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old a manifestation of advanced "culture." Sadly, however, Mr. Mitterrand is hardly the only public figure willing to shrug off sexual crimes and indiscretions.

Now he is telling people he never paid for sex. Indeed, he became visibly angry on television at the very thought of someone inferring anything unsavory from those book passages. Apparently, most of us ordinary non-underage-prostitute-frequenting folks just don't have Mr. Mitterand's nuanced appreciation of high French culture.

Veronica Lario, Mr Berlusconi’s wife, announced more than a month ago that she will be divorcing him, partly because she could not “stay with a man who consorts with minors”

He wasn't alone in justifying his peccadilloes on the front pages. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi ~ dumped by his wife after she accused him of "frequenting minors," and identified as a client by a 42-year-old prostitute ~ declared himself "the most persecuted man by the judiciary in all of the history of the entire world."

On her 18th birthday, Berlusconi gifted his girlfiend, Noemi Letizia, with a $15000 necklace.

Nevada Senator John Ensign ignored calls to step down despite acknowledging an affair with an aide's wife, while South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford clung to his job despite lying about his affair with an Argentinian woman.

And then there's John Edwards, who made a viable run for the Democratic presidential nomination even as he was fathering a child with a woman other than his (cancer-stricken) wife ~ and then allegedly tried to pawn the affair off on a sycophantic aide.

David Letterman ~ no politician but likely better known than any of the above ~ continues to play his marital crisis for laughs on his late-night talk show, which has enjoyed a surge in ratings since he confessed to sleeping with members of his staff. Mr. Letterman at least displayed a hint of contrition for his actions. Pausing amid the jokes, he admitted his wife had been "horribly hurt" by his behaviour. "Let me tell you folks, I got my work cut out for me," he added.

We seem to have entered a new phase in our evolving view of sexual relations, at least among public figures. So frequent are the scandals, so accustomed are we to dishonesty, infidelity and insincere apologies, that the guilty no longer feel any need to display shame or regret, except in the form of a cynical media-friendly flourish.

The ground has been shifting for some time. Caught lying about his tryst with Monica Lewinsky, president Bill Clinton professed his shame and recouped his popularity after the humiliation of an impeachment proceeding. Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced New York governor, pledged an everlasting effort to earn back his family's trust after consorting with a call girl, but is already back in the public eye as a columnist.

Rudy Giuliano's sexual exploits, disrespect of his family, and cross-dressing adventures do not even bear repeating but this man still ran for the American presidency on the Republican ticket.

No one ever figured if Rudy/Ruby was running for Pres or First Lady.

It has always been known that public figures suffer their share of human failings. But it was once assumed that they would strive for a higher standard of morality ~ or at least pretend to ~ if only because they serve as role models for others.

No longer, it seems. We don't just accept bad behaviour from the people we see on TV, we expect it. In fact, we've constructed a whole genre ~ reality television ~ to glorify it. For "entertainers" such as Jon Gosselin, infidelity is the very engine of their fame.

The world would be a better place if Frederic Mitterrand lost his job, Silvio Berlusconi was chased into retirement, Roman Polanski was tossed in jail and David Letterman spent more time apologizing to his wife in private, and less time joking about it in public.

FREDERIC MITTERAND IN TROUBLE OVER

RENTED BOYS AND IN 1989 FOR CALL BOYS

WHEN HE TOOK THE MIDNIGHT TOUR

OF THE WHITE HOUSE

The Roman Polanski scandal

makes his Bangkok confession

hard to accept

Britannia Radio
By Jack Bremer
October 7, 2009

The French culture minister Frederic Mitterand, who is openly gay, was fighting for his political life last night after it was revealed that he had admitted in a four-year-old memoir to paying Thai rent boys for sex during visits to Bangkok.

Mitterand, nephew of the former president Francois Mitterand, was one of the first senior French politicians to stand up for Polanski when he was arrested by Swiss police on September 26. "I strongly regret that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them," he said at the time.

Mitterand admitted to his enjoyment of rent boys in his critically acclaimed autobiography, La Mauvaise Vie (The Bad Life), published in 2005. Opposition politicians went back to the book in the light of his recent appointment to Nicolas Sarkozy's cabinet.

"I got into the habit of paying for boys," Mitterand wrote. "The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide."

At the time, he was praised for his honesty. But in the light of the Polanski controversy it looks like costing him his job. Benoit Hamon, a senior Socialist, said: "I find it shocking that a man can justify sex tourism under the cover of a literary account," said.

Sarkozy's advisers were aware of the risks, given Mitterand's known homosexuality, but decided he would be protected by France's tradition of discretion over the private lives of public figures. That was before Polanski.

Irish Daily Mail: Pedophilia and the dark heart of the EU’s parliament

Wise Up Journal
26.05.2009

The following text was printed on page 12 of the Irish Daily Mail newspaper, Monday the 25th of May 2009:

Irish Daily Mail
Monday, May 25th, 2009
By Mary Ellen Synon

The horror at the dark heart of a sordid, arrogant parliament

Here we are, a few words about Brussels and how it feels about child abuse. I’ll move onto the elections for the European parliament in a moment, but given the horrors of the Ryan report last week, I thought that you ought to know how seriously the euro-elite treat any suggestion of improper behaviour by adults towards children.

In other words I give you Daniel Cohn Bendit, an MEP for the German Green Party. He is a self-confessed kiddie-fiddler, but pulling down his trouser zip for tiny children hasn’t stopped him becoming one of the most influential members of parliament. Here is his story. Keep in mind this man has more power over the legislation of this country than does any member of the Dail.

1968, Cohn-Bendit mocks a Paris gendarme during a violent and dangerous pro-Communist Marxist riot.

Cohn-Bendit is better known as Danny the red of the 1968 Paris Barricades. A mid-century leftie, he was active in squatting, street fighting and agitation before he re-invented himself as a Green and was elected to the European parliament. Last month I went to watch him in a debate with Declan Ganley. The thing was standing-room only.

Excuses

Mr Ganley produced a book Cohn-Bendit wrote in 1975. He read out Mr Cohn-Bendit`s account of how he had worked in a kindergarten and allowed the children to pull down the zip on his trousers and touch him intimately. In the book he had asked them why they wanted to play with him and not with each other, but in the end he ‘caressed’, his word- them too.

Cohn-Bendit disputed none of it.

Indeed when Mr Ganley finished reading,

the former kindergarten teacher

whooped that he had just won €500

because he had bet someone that

Mr Ganley would read out

that bit of his auto-biography.

Remember THAT morality when the Greens come asking for your vote!

When Mr Cohn-Bendit’s supporters in the room did not give him quite give the sound of applause he seemed to be looking for with that reply, he changed tack and insisted that everything in the book had been discussed in Germany and France years ago and the parents of the children had never raised any concerns.

Mr Ganley asked: ‘And the children, what did they say?’ Danny the Red assured him and the audience that, years later, the children had all said their time at the school was extremely happy. And then he went on about how attitudes were different in the 1970s.

And if none of those excuses sounds familiar to you ~ in particular, the excuse about how attitudes were different in the 1970s ~ then you weren’t paying attention last week.

But let me give you another example of how ’seriously’ the euro-elite take the protection of children. You may remember the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium. It could be called the most horrific example of child rape and murder in Europe since the war.

Known as the beast of Belgium, Dutroux is now serving a life sentence for a series of child kidnappings, rapes and murders in 1995-96. He kept some of his victims locked in a dungeon he had built in his basement. Two eight-year-old girls starved to death there after Dutroux was arrested and served a short prison sentence for car theft: his wife didn’t bother to open the dungeon door to feed the girls.

Part of the great mystery and scandal that accompanied the case was the relentless incompetence of the authorities, at that time led by the Justice Minister, Melchior Wathelet. For years, as victims were kidnapped and murdered, police files were full of reports and tip-offs that Dutroux was selling young girls. Yet Dutroux stayed free. In the end Mr Wathelet was forced to resign in disgrace. And his reward for incompetence in the administration of Justice was ~ to be appointed a judge at the European Court of Justice.

Dutroux was a Jewish Mafia kingpin, was in charge of Israeli organized crime's child trafficking in western Europe, who also made snuff/porno movies in Belgium. He was known to own at least seven country estates, where he made the movies and then disposed of the bodies

That would be like our chief executive of the Financial Regulator, Patrick Neary, being appointed head of NAMA. Which would be a joke. But having anyone involved in any way with the horrors of the bungled Dutroux investigation appointed to one of Europe’s most senior judicial positions is no joke.

It is, however, a good measure of the arrogance of the euro-elite towards what might be called the plain people of Europe.

Pedophile Taunt Fires up French Euro Campaign.

Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, "Danny the Green" who betrayed
a generation of youth through his leadership and action.

Mitterand is not the only powerful European government leader who brags about child molesting. Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, once the charismatic radical student leader of the 1968 riots in France, is now co-president of the European Greens ~ European Free Alliance, of the European Parliament of the European Union.

Cohn-Bendit, as "Danny the Red" was a student radical leader in May 1968, also a friend of France's right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Cohn-Bendit bristled and, impolitely adopting the familiar "tu" form of address, said: "Playing this kind of game before the citizens, I'm telling you, chum: You'll never be president, because you're pathetic."

Bayrou retorted that Cohn-Bendit was in no position to hand out insults, as he was himself responsible for a "number of ignominies". Challenged by the Green leader to provide examples, Bayrou went on the attack.

"For example, I myself find it ignoble to have pushed and justified acts, with regard to children, that I cannot accept," a none too thinly veiled reference to a controversial 1975 publication by Cohn-Bendit.

Yes this is the same INTERNATIONAL GREEN party trying to win in North America on the environmental ticket! The environmental issue is no more than a platform to ride in on a popularity front. David Icke, as usual, was right about them. The environment is NOT their long term goal at all!

In 1975, Bendit, a German socialist popular in France, wrote in Le Grand Bazar, "On several occasions certain kids would” show sexual interest in him, detailing his sexual responses.

Later, accused of child abuse he said, “what I wrote is unacceptable nowadays.” The You Tube currently screens an excerpt from a French TV literary show on channel “Antenne 2 (now France 2), April 23, 1982.

Here Cohn-says he and his Green comrades had

“very few orgies, lots of drugs, soft drugs, we support those, these little hashish cakes, their fantastic. In fact I ate one tonight! Fantastic!….I work with kids….little kids, Gee, the things they do with me ~ shaking his hand provocatively and laughing ~ .aged 16 months to 2 years.”

He then details his child sexual molestation of children to his fellow French artistes, how we “cuddle….touched….kid’s sexuality….a 5 year old little girl….its eroticomaniac.”

CRIMINY! I remember this man leading the student riots in Europe when I was a teenager thinking how passionate and handsome he was back then in the 1960's. But I realize now, that he, like so many who were "leaders" back (Betty Friedan, Gloria Stienhem, Angela Davis, Ken Kesey, the list is endless) then were, in reality, Jewish Marxists posing as one thing, to mislead us, the youth of the time, towards the long term goal of the Communist party, the world domination that we now refer to as the New World Order.

In the book, The Grand Bazaar, Cohn-Bendit described what he said were encounters with children while he lived in a radical commune in Germany and appeared to suggest that he had exchanged intimate caresses with them.

When, in 2001, the earlier writings threatened his new career in European politics he strongly defended himself against charges of paedophilia and received the support of the parents who were former members of the community.

When Cohn-Bendit referred to his grand parents' deaths in a German concentration camp, Marine Le PenLe Pen hit back: "And mine died on a German mine. Let's not have a competition over the dead!"

Despite the media storm stirred up by the debate, Bayrou said Friday that he stood by what he had said, saying that he had not read the Cohn-Bendit until a few days before the debate and had been shocked by the child sex passage.

"This is a subject that gets me angry. I stand by that, it's in my nature," he said. "If you read the text the air of truthfulness strikes you."

Cohn-Bendit tried to play down the dispute, and said the episode in his book was a "page of provocation that I denounced myself in 2001."

Interesting how Cohn took an old photo from a pro Communist action and recycled it/connected it with the atrocity of the European Union.

Appointing puppet leaders who can be
controlled by blackmail
is from The Protocols of Zion.
If the person is clean,
set them up and MAKE something
to control them.

Have these Jews become so arrogant
that they feel that they can get away
with such behaviour
without repercussion?
Is this just a small part of what we can expect
should the world fall under their
Communist godless Zionist rule?

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! THIS IS THE NWO DOING THESE THINGS. NOT CONTENT TO TAKE OUR MONEY AND OUR SOULS THEY WANT OUR CHILDREN TOO.