Vetting? Not So Much

I have to say right here, right now, that whoever is doing the vetting in the White House for all these Czarships, has a strange sense of humor, if that is what you want to call the gross incompetence that has been on exhibit since the Van Jones debacle. I mean, really?

The White House has to have a rather bizarre sense of humor to nominate the “Safe Schools” Czar, Kevin Jennings.

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an “older man.” At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s “safe school czar.” It’s getting hard to keep track of all of this president’s problematic appointments. Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down.

In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.

washingtontimes.com

It would be funny if it were not disgusting- is this what a liberal agenda means? This boy, 15 years old, was asking for advice about sex with a man in his 40’s- a situation that Kevin Jennings rightly should have reported to the authorities- it was, after all, statutory rape, as the child was not of the legal age of consent, but no- in a decision that would have made Roman Polanski proud, he merely asked the student to remember condoms. What? 

Are you freaking kidding me? And this same person is nominated as the “Safe Schools” Czar? Is this level of insanity actually deliberate?  Can we all agree that this man is about as poor a choice as anyone could be?

According to Mr. Jennings’ own description in a new audiotape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the “older man” in a “bus station bathroom” and was taken to the older man’s home that night. When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape “unethical.” Mr. Jennings’ defenders asserted that there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.

However, the new audiotape contradicts this claim. In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure “to use a condom” when he was with the older man. That he actively encouraged the relationship is reinforced by Mr. Jennings’ own description in his 1994 book, “One Teacher in 10.” In that account, the teacher boasts how he allayed the student’s concerns about the relationship to such a degree that the 15-year-old “left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

washingtontimes.com

Oh, the warm and fuzzy feelings that Mr. Jennings has- or is that someone’s hand? In any event, this man, like any other pervert, or pervert- enabler,  should not be anywhere close to schools- indeed, he should stay at least 1,000 feet from any children, including any he has managed to spawn- he is obviously unfit. And quite possibly insane.

Personally, I have no problem with gay people- I do have a problem with permissive teachers giving the thumbs up to any relationship that involves statutory rape- period. Gay, straight, it matters not to me- but giving children the chance to stay children for just a little bit longer before they have to discover how cruel the world can be is, in my mind, a good thing.

People will always try to take advantage of others less able to defend themselves- what we do not need is a “Safe Schools” Czar that has absolutely no capacity to live up to his title.

His title should be “Statutory Rape Enabler” Czar.

Try, try again.

This won’t do.
Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

57 Responses to “Vetting? Not So Much”

  1. FairWitness says:

    What a pervert!

  2. Blake says:

    They seem to be prevalent , and gathering at the WH- the big problem is, who has the vetting responsibilities, and, out of ALL the educators, thought this guy was a GOOD choice?

  3. Darrel says:

    BLK: “It would be funny if it were not disgusting”>>

    DAR
    To be either of those things it would need to be true, but it’s not.

    D.

  4. Adam says:

    While I’m talking to Blake about parroting right wing talking points and his denial of that documented fact, he turns around and posts this garbage smearing Jennings? Figures.

    The actual “victim” here says he was 16, did not have sex with the man before the conversation anyway. Hannity is wrong, and you’re wrong for running this crap.

    • Blake says:

      And 16 would make it alright, huh? How Euro- trash of you.

      • Randy says:

        16 years old makes it not statutory rape, as you have asserted, based on false information put out by your sources, which ironically was not vetted.

        • Blake says:

          As I have said before,Jennings own words describe the boy as 15- now perhaps he misspoke, or not- what I am saying is that this boy deserved more guidance whether 15 or 16- you libs do this semantic thing where one year makes a world of difference here. I am not in any way trying to convict someone for illegal behavior- after all, it was twenty years ago.
          But what is in contention is Jennings judgement here- which even he says was lacking.
          Many other people could have been chosen, making this argument null and void- it was the non existent vetting process by fools in the WH, who apparently place ideology far above logic in their picks, thus perpetuating this idiocy- and that IS the correct term for this farce.

        • Randy says:

          You Libs? Nice sweeping generalization. And no, Adam is correct, your post isn’t saying that this boy deserved more guidance, nor are the articles which you cite. You are asserting that Jennings condoned statutory rape, which he did not.

        • Blake says:

          I shouldn’t have to emphasize that the boy needed guidance and advice, and I shouldn’t have to point our he was given none by an incompetent teacher who was complicit in this possibly illegal and certainly wrong relationship.
          If you cannot see this Randy, I don’t want you teaching either, because your moral compass is broken.

        • Blake says:

          If, as Jennings himself says on the audiotape, he thought the boy was 15, then perhaps he was- but even if he was 16, this was an improper relationship with an older man who might or might not be a sexual predator.
          Jennings had an overriding responsibility to protect the student,
          He failed- end of story.
          And no amount of prevaricating will make it different.

  5. Adam says:

    The title of this post does fit though: “Vetting? Not So Much”

    Did you vet your source before you parroted this smear? Not so much.

    • Blake says:

      three different sources, including the link Darrel has there- Decided that two out of three aint bad- so here we are.
      Polanski redux.

  6. Blake says:

    Some of the recollections are in Jennings own words- how proud his mommy would be, knowing he counseled a victim to “remember the condoms”.
    Especially with a man twenty- five or so years his senior.
    I am glad you have no children, Adam- you are definitely not ready for them.

  7. Adam says:

    There is no victim. To compare this to Polanski is just ridiculous. Faced with evidence contrary to your smear? You just ignore it. Good work, as usual.

    • Blake says:

      The WHOLE POINT OF THIS POST, which, as usual you seem to miss, is just how tonedeaf the admin is-out of all of the truly good educators, they pick this loser? Really?
      That is as bad as going to Copenhagen thinking Chi- town had a chance- they might have had one if Nobama DID NOT GO, but then, he has been stepping in it from the start.
      Everything he touches turns to mud, and unfortunately we the people are paying the price for him to play grown up.

      • Adam says:

        Well, I guess you miss the fact that when you cite lies in your post you get called on them. You don’t get to say “Well, what I said turns out to be wrong…but…but…but…THIS is the real point, not that anyway!” Wrong.

        • Blake says:

          They are not lies- lies would be willful dishonesty, and I do not believe that any of these sources willfully tried to deceive- Perhaps there is more recent info available, but as I have said, even being 16 doesn’t excuse Jennings from what should have been his duty as a teacher.
          Let me put this another way- If the student was 16, and it was Jennings himself who wanted the relationship, would that have been correct?
          Or, as a teacher, does he have boundaries he shouldn’t cross?
          The boundary he DID cross was his DUTY as a teacher first, and a friend SECOND.

  8. Adam says:

    It’s pathetic of you to move the goal post from it being statutory rape, laws broken, the premise of the attack, to “But it’s still wrong anyway!” and then bring up some garbage about how you’re glad I don’t have kids. Grow up. It doesn’t have to be personal. You’re just wrong, again.

    • Blake says:

      Your morality is fluid, Adam, and that’s the problem with many liberals- you have no line in the sand you won’t cross, no absolutes on good and evil. Everything is relative to you, and sorry to say, NO it is not. There are some things that are black and white, good and evil and you have to have some courage and take a stand sometime- something liberals are loath to do.

      • Adam says:

        Just a faulty generalization and more assumption on your part that you know anything about my morals.

        I’m not here to debate the morality of what Jennings did, just the legality. The smear has always been about Jennings covering up criminal activity. You can keep trying to fall back on moral arguments and attack my views but we both know it’s still just covering the fact you posted bogus information and refuse to retract it.

        Furthermore, I won’t be lectured on morals by a man who promotes torturing people just because he considers them our enemies.

        • Blake says:

          You will be lectured on whatever I think you are deficient on- in this case morality- you obviously need the guidance- your morals are “squishy”, to say the least, and you need to learn this, or you will never grow as a person into a real adult.
          Nowhere did I say that Jennings had committed a crime- I DID say that, like you, his moral compass was off a few degrees, and was not the best choice for (A truly Ironic title) Safe Schools Czar-
          you just keep on lying about my post, or refusing to see the point- that’s OK- it merely emphasizes the paucity of public school education in recent years- you can’t read for comprehension, that is plain.
          Or you are deliberately dishonest- which is it?

        • Adam says:

          Sorry, but you wrote it, not me, so don’t call me deliberately dishonest when you can’t even claim your own words:

          This boy, 15 years old, was asking for advice about sex with a man in his 40’s- a situation that Kevin Jennings rightly should have reported to the authorities- it was, after all, statutory rape, as the child was not of the legal age of consent…

          Right, you didn’t call him a “criminal”, you didn’t say he “committed a crime”, you just said he did something that is a crime. You accused Jennings of not reporting child abuse, which is a crime.

          I notice you didn’t address your morally abhorrent views on torture. Who would Jesus torture and mame in the name of national security?

          • Big Dog says:

            What is the point? Did Jennings fail to report it and if so, then he committed a crime.

            As for torture, when it is defined then we can report it. The law does not list what is and what is not and the legal ruling was that the EITs were legal under the law of the time. I don’t know who Jesus would torture or that he would because I do not presume to speak for him. I am having a hard time figuring out how that is germane but since you are posing the Jesus questions, how do you suppose he would feel about abortion? How do you suppose he would feel about child molestation?

            Not asking you to speak for him but since you asked you must feel that you know how he feels so give us some insight on these issues.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “Did Jennings fail to report it and if so, then he committed a crime.”>>

              DAR
              Nope. This just in:

              Fox News Corrects False Claims About Gay Obama Education Adviser — Will Hannity Do The Same?

              “Fox News ended up having to issue an “online correction of the false claims the outlet had been making while waging a high-profile assault on Kevin Jennings,” the Department of Education official currently being targeted by the right wing. The specific claim involved an accusation that Jennings had covered up “statutory rape,” based on an incident when Jennings was a teacher, when a “teenager confided in him about having sex with a stranger and Jennings didn’t report it to authorities.”

              Media Matters ended up proving there was no basis to the claim. Via The Plum Line:

              On Friday Media Matters produced what it said was the kid’s drivers license, showing that the kid was 16, legal age of consent in Massachuttes, and also produced a Facebook exchange that seemed to show that a Fox News reporter had been informed directly by the kid himself that they’d misrepresented his age.

              LINK

            • Blake says:

              As I have said, EVEN if the kid was 16, he was still the responsibility of the school when he confided in the enabler Jennings- so Jennings was wrong (except in left wing loon land), and so showed flawed judgement- not what we would want in a “leader” of our children.
              And consider that it was Jennings himself who thought the kid was 15- do we take his word? Or excuse him for lying?
              Gee- what a pi$$poor person he is- he lies AND covers up wrong behavior.

            • Blake says:

              Was it MM who was showing the false rape charges on Glen Beck?
              Why should we believe MM?

            • Big Dog says:

              Did the kid report the encounter for a reason? What are the laws regarding reporting these things? The issue is whether the man ignored it or investigated to see if there was an issue such as, was the man another teacher?

              Jennings thought the kid was 15 so what his age was is of no concern if Jennings thought he was 15 and did not check the actual age. If that is the case then he had an obligation to report it or clarify it with the kid. Jennings said the kid was 15, from an audio recording:

              “He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him,'” Jennings recounted. “High school sophomore, 15 years old … I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’ He said to me something I will never forget, He said ‘Why should I, my life isn’t worth saving anyway.’'”

              The link to the audio is here.

              Jennings says he is 15 so what does that tell us?

        • Blake says:

          OK- then lets say that Jennings abetted in the criminal activity- does that sound better?
          And even IF the child was 16, he was still a child, a STUDENT, and should have been better cared for by Jennings in Jennings capacity as a teacher/ counselor.
          And the parents should have been notified, as he was a student.
          Did Jennings do ANY of this? No. So at the VERY LEAST, he was complicit in the predatory situation, at the worst, he actively abetted in that.
          Is that better for you?
          And my views on torture or anything else are but a deflection and distraction on this issue.
          I will be glad at a later time to debate you on that subject, why, for now, don’t you see if you can stay on point?

  9. Barbara says:

    I sure hope you don’t have kids, Adam because you are disgusting.

    • Adam says:

      Perhaps explain to me how I am disgusting you…

      • Blake says:

        First, it was statutory rape- there is enough evidence that the boy was fifteen- but even if he was one year older (whoop de do) he came to the teacher asking for true advice and what does he get? Remember the condoms-
        And you disgust me, Adam, because you think all of that constitutes a substantial difference, and all of a sudden it excuses the teacher, Jennings, from his responsibility as a teacher, and the one year all of a sudden makes this relationship, which began in a men’s bathroom- how romantic- alright.

        • Blake says:

          Here’s the latest- listen to Jennings tape- the one year difference makes it all OK? Even Jennings admits he should have done differently-
          http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/03/student-defends-obamas-safe-schools-czar-underage-sex-case/

        • Adam says:

          It’s a shame that your attack on the “Statutory Rape Enabler Czar” has collapsed under the weight of actual reality and instead of admitting you were wrong to smear Jennings you instead just switch to a debate about whether 16 is really a good age for consent and you attack me with it.

          I think it constitutes a substantial difference? Yes, I do. One case, the fabricated one you’re lying about, is illegally not reporting a child rapist. The other, what actually happened, is a teacher counseling a young adult on how to protect himself in a legal, sexual relationship between two people old enough to consent.

          Funny how some conservatives are all about the law until that law conflicts with how they want to mandate the sexual relationship between two consenting persons.

          As you said, Jennings admits he should have handled things differently. That is not an admission that he broke any laws, did anything perverted, enabled rape, or anything of that nature. Get real.

          Stop spreading lies. Also stop making this about me and how I disgust you. You posted lies and got caught. Grow up.

        • Blake says:

          Still not sure if it was a lie, or this is now a coverup- I don’t know for sure, and you are just assuming, and yes, your dismissive attitude does disgust me- and I still think Jennings was and is a bad pick for (especially) the position he now has- when you consider all the other superior people who might have been picked instead, who did not have skeletons in their closets.
          If you listen to the audiotape, he is describing a 15 year old- now perhaps he misspoke- perhaps not.
          What I am saying is that even if the boy was 16, he was being preyed on by an older man, and that is not a good thing. If you think it was OK, I would never want you to be in a position of authority over my children. I wouldn’t allow it. Period.

        • Adam says:

          Thinking 16 is wrong is fine by me. Even Jennings said he regrets it. But no laws were broken. Calling him a criminal and a pervert is a baseless smear. Hannity is wrong, not that he’ll likely admit so. He’ll probably just fall back on being unsure, like you are.

        • Adam says:

          In fact haven’t they changed the law to 18 now anyway since? I’m fine with your sentiment, but let’s be honest here. The basis of this attack is on there being a coverup of illegal activity, not the morality of an older man and a 16 year old. The attack is invalid.

        • Blake says:

          Actually, I nowhere called him a criminal- that is your mind making stuff up- don’t be dishonest here- I did call him a pervert- enabler, which I believe to be a correct definition- he did enable an older man to take advantage of a younger man, and that is NOT what our teachers are supposed to do- certainly not someone with the title “Safe Schools” Czar.
          Rather ironic under the circumstances, don’t you think?

        • Adam says:

          Right, you didn’t call him a criminal, you just accused him of committing a crime in the covering up of another crime. That’s completely different.

          You haven’t even addressed the fact that you compared the sexual relationship between two legally consenting partners to Polanski who drugged and raped a 14 year old girl and was found guilty then fled the country. Right, so similar.

        • Adam says:

          For the record I was wrong. Apparently the age is still 16 for consent in Mass, not 18.

  10. Adam says:

    Unlike Blake and torture, I do not cheer on and support abortion or child molestation, so I don’t see the point of your question.

    If Blake wants to run from the fact that he posted lies about Jennings by making this an attack on my morals, well…I think I get the right to point out he is not one to judge anyone’s moral character.

    Let us for the record state Blake’s views on torture:

    The CIA can, as I have said, strip skin from their bodies as far as I am concerned. I do not care. These are people who cut off our soldier’s heads. Whatever they get in return is not enough. They should thank God I am not in charge, or there wold be some real hot batteries around.

    Yes, Blake. Thank God, you evil bastard.

    • Blake says:

      First, I did not post lies- show that this is clearly so- this you cannot do.
      And, as I said, I will be glad to debate torture with you anytime- personally, one on one would be best, but I will do so on this post, since you would not be likely to meet me- And, as you, I have the right to judge your moral character as you judge mine- I find you lacking conviction and the moral surety that would enable you to actually take any meaningful action to protect this country, and as such, you are useless.

      • Adam says:

        You posted things that were false about Jennings. When you saw that they were false you failed to retract or make note. You are a liar.

        I don’t really care how you feel about my morals. You will always be the mentally ill person that supports immoral acts of torture and thus I will put no weight on what you say about my morality.

        • Blake says:

          Your “morality” is easily known from your unhinged responses- there is really not much more I could add that would punctuate your insanity- you do this to yourself.
          I might not judge you, but I do pity you.

    • Adam says:

      To refute me you post a blatantly anti-gay blog posting from the liars at American Thinker? They lie in the first paragraph about the boy being 15 which he was not. Then they go on an anti-gay tirade. Get real. You are wrong and a liar who keeps citing even more liars. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Blake says:

        That would be your opinion- am not yet convinced that he was 16 yet- so just keep on foaming at the mouth- it makes you look even more unhinged than usual, and that is hard to do.

        • Big Dog says:

          Kind of does not matter how old the CHILD was, he was still a child. Given Jennings’ kinship with NAMBLA I wonder how Adam can defend him…

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Given Jennings’ kinship with NAMBLA…”>>

          DAR
          More right-wing rubbish already smacked down.

          Repeat right-wing smears with caution, they are usually false.

          D.
          ———————
          “Hay wrote in the Gay Community News (retrieved from Nexis) in 1994, “I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one.”

          • Big Dog says:

            Media Matters? Left wing echo chamber.

            So why would Hay be speaking at a NAMBLA event? Why would anyone praise a guy who had anything to do with NAMBLA? Would you praise bin Laden if you found out he was doing good work for the civil rights of some group knowing what his life has been about?

          • Big Dog says:

            Jennings: “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay.”

            According to NAMBLA:

            According to NAMBLA’s website, Hay made the following statement in a 1983 address: “I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”

            Now, this is the guy that inspires him…

            Source

        • Blake says:

          THAT’S a “smackdown”? That still does not address his possible support of NAMBLA, even if he isn’t a boy- carrying member, and I do not give a rat’s a** about Hay- he’s dead- but do worry about “safe schools” when someone so irresponsible is allegedly in charge.

  11. Blake says:

    Some more on Harry Hay, Jennings hero-
    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=927

  12. Blake says:

    And now, a failed sci-fi writer weighs in on this, simply by ad hominem attacks on Dog and me- well, what do you expect from that class of people?
    Perhaps one day, terry can be more than a one- trick pony, or in his case, an A$$.

    • Blake says:

      I guess Adam ran whining to him about how we’re beating up on a poor gay person- no, we are not- we’re beating up on a teacher who has no morals, and did not do the right thing by the student and his parents.