By Matt Barber
Monday, October 28, 2013
Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, “In this world
nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
Franklin evidently failed to envisage today’s postmodern
left. For the conservative, there exists at least one other certainty, and it
is this: The degree to which “progressives” attack you corresponds precisely to
the degree with which you challenge any among their assorted, distorted and
sordid sacred cows.
What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and
axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted,
runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)
What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual
preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, “Harvey always had a
penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems”?
In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this
man “demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of
teenage boys.”
But you can call him Harvey Milk.
Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first
openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city
commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual
ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow
Democrat Dan White.
And a “progressive” martyr was born.
Merriam Webster defines “pederast” as “one who practices
anal intercourse especially with a boy.” It defines “statutory rape” as “the
crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified
by law.”
Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a
statutory rapist. After I publicly addressed this objective reality in the
above-mentioned interview, the liberal blogosphere reacted in, shall we say, an
informatively defensive manner.
A Huffington Post headline screamed: “Harvey Milk Was An
‘Evil Man’ Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber.”
The always-amusing Right Wing Watch blog breathlessly
posted my comments with the header: “Barber: ‘Harvey Milk Was Demonstrably,
Categorically an Evil Man.’”
And so on.
Here’s what’s especially telling about their reaction.
Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even
challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk
was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.
That’s because they can’t.
One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from
Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft
spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro
quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.
Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and
close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains,
even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.
Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing
book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the
McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father
figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have
imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new
lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s
America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane.
Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of
SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of
the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, “Explaining Milk’s many flings and
affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one
‘lover’ why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships
simultaneously: ‘As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model. …
We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don’t have to follow it. We
should be developing our own lifestyle. There’s no reason why you can’t love
more than one person at a time.’”
Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately
sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction,
he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in
McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.
Years later McKinley committed suicide.
Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was
Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview
with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled
teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from
his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.
According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your
parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter
was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota
attorney general’s office.
The incident was evidently swept under the rug.
So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent
crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable
mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California
state holiday (“Harvey Milk Day”) and, more recently, his own commemorative
postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration’s USPS.
God bless America?
As troubling as the postage stamp may be, to me – the
father of a soon-to-be-teenage boy – the specter of having a “Harvey Milk Day”
forced upon millions of California children, parents and educators is even more
troubling. Especially in light of Milk’s own sordid history with minors.
Even so, and quite obviously, not everyone agrees. Some
have said that my reality-based assessment of Harvey Milk is “uncivil.” Our
historical revisionist friends on the left tend to get a bit snooty when you
publicly deconstruct one of their meticulously fabricated mythical martyrs.
I find that odd.
To me, even the mere notion of elevating, to hero status,
a man who statutorily raped teenage boys, is what’s uncivil.
No comments:
Post a Comment